Mrs. Annapurna Mathkur ... vs Sebi

IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2026. CORAM: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member Appeal No. 11 of 2026 [Along with Misc. Application Nos. 1199 and 1200 of 2025] BETWEEN: Mrs. Annapurna Mathkur Venkatachalaiah #33, C Type, KIOCL Township, Kavoor, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka- 575 015 ...Appellant Mr. Kumaraswamy BN, Advocate for the Appellant. AND Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C4-A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Aavish Shetty, Mr. Karthik K.P., Mr. Vijay Chockalingam and Mr. Yash Sutaria, Advocates i/b. M/s. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED BY THE WTM, SEBI. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral) This appeal is presented by one of the Directors of Secure Success Plan Private Limited with a delay of 2692 days.

When the matter was taken up for admission on the first date of hearing the learned advocate for the appellant had submitted that the appellant is a name lender / nominal director; and all activities of the Company were run by her son. It was also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order dated April 25, 2018 her bank account has been frozen. Her husband is also a senior citizen. It would not be possible for her to get the family pension after her husband's death in future because her bank account is frozen. Having considered this limited submission, we had called upon the learned advocate for SEBI to complete instructions. 2. Today, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant desires to challenge the order on merits. 3. The application for condonation of delay is opposed by SEBI by filing reply. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that this appeal is meritorious and therefore the delay should not come in the way of admitting this appeal. In the application for condonation of delay the appellant has placed reliance on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst.

Katiji 1. 5. Mr. Mody, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the impugned order was passed on April 25, 2018. Appellant has annexed the medical records of the year 2020. The appellant has not shown any valid cause for condonation of delay. 6. We have carefully perused the application for condonation of delay. In substance, it is stated in the application that the delay was neither deliberate nor due to the negligence but occasioned by circumstances beyond the appellant's control including lack of knowledge, non-receipt of complete records, medical and family exigencies etc. 7. Admitted position is, after adjudication, the SEBI has passed the impugned order directing refund of Rs. 3.99 Crore. It was also contended by the learned advocate for 1 (1987) 2 SCC 107 4 the appellant that in the Recovery Certificate dated 20.07.2021, the demand made against the appellant was only Rs. 41.27 lakhs and Rs. 4.66 lakhs against her son. He submitted that an immovable property belonging to appellant's husband situated in Bengaluru was attached and its value was more than Rs. 1 Crore in 2021. To a pointed query as to what happened further with the property and how much recovery was made, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has no knowledge about it.

8. In substance, the main contention urged before us is that the liability crystalised against the appellant as on 20.07.2021 was only Rs. 41.27 lakhs and the immovable property attached by the Recovery Officer was worth over Rs. 1 Crore. Therefore, the appellant's liability having been fully discharged, there should be no further consequences against the appellant. 9. Mr. Mody submitted that the Recovery Certificate referred by the appellant is with regard to the direction for refund personally against the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 56(h) in the impugned order. Adverting to the other directions and particularly direction in paragraph 56(k), he submitted that there shall be no debit from the bank accounts until the entire recovery of Rs. 3.99 Crore with interest thereon is satisfied. 10. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. Mr. Mody is right in his contention that the total amount of refund ordered is Rs. 3.99 Crore. The impugned order is dated 25.04.2018 and this appeal is presented on 08.01.2026 with a delay of around 8 years. We find no satisfactory explanation in the application for condonation of delay.

It is also not in dispute that the appellant was a Director. No material is placed on record to show the quantum of recovery, if any, made pursuant to the impugned order. It was argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that this appeal is meritorious and therefore delay needs to be condoned. It is settled that condonation of delay depends on the facts of each case and when the case is strong on merits the delay aspect may be considered leniently. Here is a case where there is no material on record to show that any recovery was actually made except oral assertions that a property was attached and the recovery of liability mentioned in paragraph 56(f) is satisfied. 11. It is relevant to note that the liability which flows from the direction in paragraph 56(k) is Rs. 3.99 Crore with interest thereon. Pursuant to the impugned order recovery proceedings have been initiated. The appellant ought to have approached the Recovery Officer and sought appropriate orders with regard to the pension aspect. 12. Having considered the application for condonation of delay, we find no ground to condone the delay of 8 years in filing this appeal.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 13. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion in so far as appellant's remedy to approach the Recovery Officer. All her rights and contentions are kept open. No costs. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 24.04.2026 PRERNA MANISH KHARE Digitally signed by PRERNA MANISH KHARE Date: 2026.04.28 13:06:57 +05'30' PK