Mr. Sujoy Sinha vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 26.08.2019

Misc. Application No. 256 of 2019 And Appeal No. 253 of 2019 Mr. Sujoy Sinha Binayak Enclave, 59, Kalicharan Ghosh Road, Block-Q Flat 407, Kolkata- 700 050 ...Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ...Respondent

Mr. Nimay Dave, Advocate with Ms. Aparna Wagle, Advocate i/b Alliance Law for the Appellant.

Mr. Vivek Shah, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

December 01, 2015 passed by the Whole Time Member

("WTM" for convenience) of Securities and Exchange Board of

India ("SEBI" for convenience) whereby the company

Greentouch Projects Limited and its directors/ promoters were 2

directed jointly and severally to forthwith money refunded by

the company through the issuance of Non-Convertible

Redeemable Debentures. There is a delay of 1127 days in filing

the appeal and accordingly an application for condoning the

delay has also been filed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was

contended that the appellant was only a salaried employee and

was unable to bear the financial cost for pursuing the remedy

and was also awaiting the disposal of his representation by the

respondent and thus, contended that the delay was unintentional

and the same should be condoned.

3. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the

record we find that the appellant was a director and was duly

represented in the proceedings before the WTM of SEBI. The

appellant was aware of the order that was passed against him.

Instead of filing an appeal, the appellant made a representation

to SEBI. Such representation does not extend the period of

limitation.

4. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed

reliance upon a decision of this Tribunal in Praveen Poddar vs. 3

SEBI (Appeal No. 06 of 2019 decided on 15.07.2019) wherein

this Tribunal had condoned the delay. Further, reliance was

made of a decision of the Supreme Court in Huchanagouda vs.

The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer

and Ors. (decided on 30.07.2019) and Collector, Land

Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors.

(1987) 2 SCC 107.

5. In Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. (2002)

3 SCC 195, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression

"sufficient cause" should be given a liberal construction so as to

advance substantial justice especially when no negligence or

inaction or want of bonafides is imputable to a party.

6. However, in Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh &

Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 685 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the

expression "sufficient cause" means the presence of legal and

adequate reasons.

7. In the instant case, there has been inordinate delay of 1127

days in approaching the Appellate Tribunal. The contention

that the appellant was a salaried employee cannot be believed as

record shows that he was a whole time director in the company.

Further, the appellant after passing of the impugned order was 4

aware of the legal implications and did not file an appeal but

chose to file a representation. Such representation does not

extend the period of limitation.

8. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that

sufficient cause has not been shown nor any adequate or legal

reasons have been given for condoning the delay. The grounds

urged are patently erroneous and appears to be an afterthought.

No bonafide reasons have been given for condoning the delay.

We are of the opinion, that it is the requirement of law that an

application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a

matter of right especially in the absence of adequate or legal

reasons. The judgements cited by the learned counsel for the

appellant are distinguishable and are not applicable in the

present case. Consequently, for the reasons stated aforesaid, for

the inordinate delay in filing the appeal the application for

condonation of delay is rejected, as a result, the appeal is also

dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 26.08.2019 Prepared & Compared By: PK