Nirshilp Commodities And Trading Pvt. ... vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.46 of 2020
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