Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a complainant repeatedly files successive complaints on the SCORES platform on the same issue, and earlier dispositions of that issue are not challenged within the limitation period, the complainant cannot revive the issue by filing a further complaint and then appealing the disposal of that later complaint; such serial re-filing is a misuse of the process of law and cannot be used to circumvent the Limitation Act. An appeal filed after an inordinate delay, where the delay is attributable to a sequence of re-agitated complaints on an already-decided issue, does not warrant condonation of delay, and the application for condonation is rejected on that ground, which in turn disposes of the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision:8.12.2020Misc. Application No.358 of 2020AndAppeal No.356 of 2020Mridula BhandariHB-288/2, Sector-III,Salt Lake City, Calcutta 700091. ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4A, Block 'G',Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051. ...RespondentMr. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. AnjaliAgrawal, Advocate i/b. Anjali Agrawal for the Appellant.Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. MihirMody, Advocate i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial MemberPer: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)1.The appellant being aggrieved by the disposal of thecomplaint on the SCORES platform by an order of 27thSeptember, 2019 has filed the present appeal. There isa delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal and,2accordingly, an application for condonation of delayhas been filed. The ground urged is, that the appellantis 83 years old and is totally dependent on her advocateMrs. Anjali Agrawal. It was contended that heradvocate was undergoing a lot of stress on account ofmedical emergencies of her son and daughter as aresult of which she had to undertake travel to US andAustralia where her children were staying. It was alsocontended that on her return she was afflicted bysevere back pain as a result of which she was advisedcomplete bed rest. It was, thus, contended that sinceher advocate was out of India from 26th December,2019 to 12th January, 2020 the appellant had noknowledge of the disposal of her complaint and onlycame to know when her advocate checked on theSCORES platform on 19th January, 2020.2. On these reasons prima facie there was sufficientjustification for condoning the delay but this delayapplication was contested by the respondentcontending that it is a misuse of the process of the law.33. Having heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal,Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjali Agrawal, Advocatefor the Appellant and Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, SeniorAdvocate assisted by Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate forthe Respondent we find that the appellant's husbandhad filed a suit no.2916 of 1997 against HindustanLever Ltd with regard to the non-transfer of 550shares. This suit was decreed on 3rd November, 2008against which the company filed appeal no.156 of2009 which is pending consideration before theCalcutta High Court. Notwithstanding the aforesaid,the appellant filed execution proceeding in the year2017 and thereafter filed a complaint on the SCORESplatform against the company with regard to the samenon-transfer of shares on 6th September, 2018 andagain on 11th October, 2018 which was disposed of bythe respondent on 19th October, 2018. Not beingsatisfied with the disposal of her complaint, a freshcomplaint was filed on 12th November, 2018 whichwas again disposed of on 14th November, 2018.4Thereafter, another complaint was filed on 16thNovember, 2018 which was disposed of on 30thNovember, 2018. The appellant again filed acomplaint on 6th February, 2019 which was disposedon the SCORES platform on 26th March 2019. Theappellant thereafter file another complaint on 12thApril, 2019 which was disposed of on 31st May, 2019and lastly, a complaint was filed on 16th July, 2019which was disposed of by the impugned order of 27thSeptember, 2019.4. All the complaints relate to the same issue, ie, non-transfer of 550 shares which were all disposed of bythe respondent SEBI on the SCORES platform.5. We are of the opinion that there is an inordinatedelay in the filing of the appeal. Merely by filing acomplaint and getting an order of disposal of thecomplaint will not enlarge the time for challenging andraising the issue which was decided earlier on theSCORES platform. Such complaint being filedrepeatedly on the same issue is a misuse of the process5of law and the Limitation Act cannot be circumventedin such fashion. We find that the same complaint wasearlier disposed of on 19th October, 2018, 14thNovember, 2018, 30th November, 2018, 26th March,2019 and 31st May, 2019 which has not beenchallenged and, therefore, it is no longer open to theappellant to raise the same issue again and, thereafter,challenge the order which disposed of the complaint.6. In our opinion there is an inordinate delay in thefiling of the appeal quite apart from the fact thatsuccessive complaints being filed was a misuse of theprocess of law.7. For the reasons stated aforesaid, on account of theinordinate delay in the filing of the appeal theapplication for condonation of delay is rejected as aresult of which the appeal is also dismissed with noorder as to costs.8. The present matter was heard through videoconference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage itis not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a6certified copy of this order could be issued by theregistry. In these circumstances, this order will bedigitally signed by the Presiding Officer on behalf ofthe bench and all concerned parties are directed to acton the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties willact on production of a digitally signed copy sent by faxand/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2
AGARWAL ab7954d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e79997 27d404aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.12.08 17:29:54 +05'30'
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member
