Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mr. Vijayraj Surana vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal27 March 2019Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condoned where the appellant has satisfactorily explained the delay, namely that, having ceased to be a Director of the company, he had difficulty obtaining access to relevant documents, and that procuring those documents from the Interim Resolution Professional consumed time; such a cause is held sufficient for condonation of delay under the limitation applicable to the appeal.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Date of Decision : 27.3.2019

Misc. Application No.62 of 2019 And Appeal No.58 of 2019

Mr. Vijayraj Surana No.6, Nathan Street, Harrington Road, Next to Prashant Hospital Lane, Chetpet, Chennai Tamil Nadu - 600031. ..... Appellant

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051. ...... Respondent

Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate with Mr. Joby Mathew and Mr. Nikhil Shah, Advocates i/b. Joby Mathew & Associates for the Appellant.

Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

Misc. Application No.62 of 2019

There is a delay of 93 days in filing the appeal. One of the

grounds is that the appellant is no longer a Director of the Company and

it became difficult to have access to the relevant documents. Further, it 2

took some time to procure the documents from the Interim Resolution

Professional. As a consequence, there was a delay in filing the appeal.

In our opinion, cause shown is sufficient. The delay has been

satisfactorily explained. We consequently condone the delay. The Misc.

Application is allowed. The appeal is treated to be filed within time.

Appeal No.58 of 2019 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we direct the

respondent six weeks time to file the reply. Two weeks thereafter for

rejoinder. List for admission and final disposal on 5th July, 2019.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

27.3.2019 Prepared and compared by RHN

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free