Mr. Umashankar Sharan Shrivastav vs Sebi

Date of Decision: 30.09.2021

Misc. Application No. 908 of 2021 And Appeal No. 612 of 2021

Mr. Umashankar Sharan Shrivastav R/o-B 26 Shivam, D Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi- 110 018 ...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. Sachinkumar Rajepandhare, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for Respondent.

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

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

The appellant has filed the appeal questioning the veracity

of the order dated September 05, 2017 passed by the Whole

Time Member ("WTM" for convenience) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for convenience). There is a 2

delay of 1378 days in the filing of the appeal and accordingly an

application for condonation of delay has been filed.

2. The ground urged is, that the impugned order dated

September 05, 2017 was never served upon the appellant inspite

of giving them the email address etc. It was contended that the

appellant came to know about the impugned order when he

found that his bank accounts were attached pursuant to some

recovery proceedings on January 14, 2019. It was contended

that the appellant pursued the matter with the SEBI Authorities

for defreezing the bank accounts which plea was rejected on

December 11, 2020 and thereafter filed the appeal on September

06, 2021 upon easing of the pandemic situation.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are

not satisfied with the cause shown. Assuming without

admitting that the impugned order was never served and that the

appellant came to know for the first time on January 14, 2019,

nonetheless, the appeal was filed on September 06, 2021 after

more than 2 ½ years. The fact that the appellant was pursuing

the proceedings for withdrawal of the attachment will not

enlarge the time for filing an appeal against the order dated 3

September 05, 2017. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in the

filing of the appeal. We are not satisfied with the cause shown.

4. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 the Supreme Court held that the

discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially

based on facts and circumstances of each case and that

sufficient cause cannot be given a liberal interpretation if lack of

bonafide is attributed to a party. The Supreme Court further held

that delay cannot be condoned on equitable ground beyond the

limits permitted expressly by statute.

5. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and Ors. (supra)

held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a

liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no

negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a

party. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in

Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535.

6. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, (2010)

8 SCC 685 Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient

cause" means the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The

decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no 4

avail and, in any case, not applicable in the present

circumstance of the case.

7. This Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of judicial

discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient or adequate

reason is given. It is also a settled proposition of law that the

law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has

to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.

The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on

equitable grounds as held by the Supreme Court in Basawaraj

and Anr. (supra). In the instant case we do not find any legal or

adequate reasons to condone the delay.

8. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the application for

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

is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. The present matter was heard through video conference

due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign

a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be

issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be

digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench

and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally 5

signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a

digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 30.09.2021 RAJALA Digitally by signed

PK KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H

Date: 2021.10.01 H NAIR 16:19:18 +05'30'