Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Nirshilp Commodities And Trading Pvt. ... vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal1 March 2021

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal held that delay in filing an appeal may be condoned, and the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extended, where the appellant bona fide pursued a rectification application under Rule 5(5) of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995, a wrong remedy, and the authority failed to dispose of that application, in the absence of any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant.

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

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Date: 1.3.2021

Misc. Application No.42 of 2020 And Appeal No.46 of 2020

Nirshilp Commodities and Trading Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent

Ms. Aayushi Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants.

Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Kinjal Bhatt and Mr. Hersh Choudhary, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners for the Respondent.

Order:

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order

dated 31st January, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating

Officer imposing a penalty. There is a delay of 312 days

in the filing of the appeal and, accordingly, an application

for condonation of delay has been filed. The ground

urged is that a rectification application was filed on 19th

March, 2019 under Rule 5(5) of the Securities and

Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry 2

and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995. This application

remained pending and the Enforcement Department only

informed on 10th December, 2019 that the appellant is

required to file an appeal. Soon thereafter the appellant

filed the appeal in January, 2020.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we

find that admittedly a rectification application was filed

and the appellant pursuing remedy even though it was a

wrong remedy. However, in the absence of any malafide

intention coupled with the fact that the respondent failed

to pass any order on the application filed by the appellant,

we are of the opinion that the benefit given under the

section 14 of the Limitation Act should be extended in

this case also. We, accordingly, condone the delay on

payment of Rs.25,000 which should be paid to the

Registrar of the Tribunal within four weeks from today.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties let a

reply be filed within three weeks. Two weeks thereafter

to the appellant to file rejoinder. The matter would be

listed for admission and for disposal on 8th April, 2021. 3

4. Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hours

before the date fixed to find out as to whether the hearing

would take place through video conferencing or through

physical hearing.

5. 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

RAJALA Digitally signed

1.3.2021 KSHMI by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR RHN H NAIR Date: 2021.03.02 13:35:03 +05'30'

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