Mr. Vijay Suryavanshi vs Sebi

Mr. Amit Jaste, Advocate i/b Amit Jaste & Associates Practicing Company Secretaries for the Appellant.

Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate with Ms. Kinjal Bhatt, Advocate i/b Vidhii Partners for the Respondent. 3

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

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)

1.

The three appeals are against different orders passed by the

Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of Securities

and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI'). The

issue is the same and accordingly all the three appeals are being

decided together.

2. The appellant has challenged the order dated March 11, 2010

in appeal No. 72 of 2020 and the order dated May 6, 2009 in appeal

No. 73 of 2020 and the order dated July 16, 2009 in appeal No. 74 of

2020 whereby a penalty has been imposed for violation of the SEBI

laws.

3. There is a delay of 3579 days in the filing of the appeal and,

accordingly an application for condonation of delay has been filed. It

is alleged that the appellant was unaware of the initiation of the

proceedings and was never served with the show cause notice or any

date of hearing and only came to know when his accounts were

frozen pursuant to the impugned order in October 2019 and,

therefore, the present appeals have been filed. It was, thus, urged

that the delay, if any, is liable to be condoned. 4

4. The applications have been vehemently opposed by the

respondent contending that the plea raised by the appellant is not

bonafide and is patently false. It was urged that the show cause

notice was sent at the correct address by registered post

acknowledgment due which was duly received and thereafter the

summons indicating the date of personal hearing was also sent and

was duly received. It was contended that the summons for personal

hearing was refused by the mother of the appellant. Even the service

of the impugned order was refused by the members of the appellant's

family. It was also contended that pursuant to a police complaint, the

appellant himself gave a statement to the police authorities in 2019

indicating that he became aware of the fraud in the year 2014. It

was, thus, urged that the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings

and for reasons best known the appellant deliberately did not

contest the matter. It was, thus, contended that the grounds raised by

the appellant were not bonafide and the applications are liable to be

rejected.

5. In rejoinder, it was contended by the appellant that the

question of refusal of the summons did not arise at that point of time

in as much as the appellant was not in Mumbai and was staying in 5

Pune and the mother refused to accept the summons on the ground

that her son was not staying at that moment of time.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that

cause shown by the appellant is neither sufficient nor bonafide. A

perusal of the voluminous documents filed by the respondent clearly

indicates that due process was taken by the respondent to serve the

appellant. The summons was sent at the correct address and was

duly served upon the members of the family of the appellant which

has not been disputed. We also find that the appellant himself made

a statement to the police that he knew about the fraud in 2014.

7. Thus, we are satisfied that the appellant had knowledge of the

proceedings but chose to stay away. There has been an undue delay

of more than 3579 days in the filing of the appeals. Such undue

delay has not been satisfactorily explained and the grounds urged are

neither legal nor tenable.

8. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,

[(2013) 14 SCC 81], the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that 6

delay cannot be condoned on equitable ground beyond the limits

permitted expressly by statute.

9. The Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Madanlal vs. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535].

10. 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.

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

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

the case.

11. 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 7

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Anr. (supra). In the instant

case, we do find any legal or adequate reasons to condone the delay

12. For the reasons stated aforesaid, there is an inordinate delay

in the filing of the appeals. The applications for condonation of

delay are rejected as a result of which the appeals are also dismissed

with no order as to costs.

13. 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 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 18.02.2021 RAJALAK Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI PTM SHMI H Date: 2021.02.21 H NAIR

NAIR 19:00:59 +05'30'