P.K. Iyer vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 126 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The application for condonation of delay is rejected, and the appeal is dismissed as a consequence, because the controversy regarding condonation of an inordinate delay is squarely covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in T. Venkattram Reddy & Anr. vs SEBI, and the reasons stated there apply equally here; the appellant's explanation of pending CBI proceedings and the pandemic does not, by itself, justify condonation of a 1057-day delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 21.02.2023
Misc. Application No. 61 of 2023 And Appeal No. 126 of 2023
P.K. Iyer No. 2, LIC Colony, Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041. ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...Respondent Mumbai - 400 051
Ms. Shreya Parikh, Advocate with Ms. Mahima Makhija and Mr. Ashwin Bala Someshwarar, Advocates i/b Eshwars for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Mr. Shourya Tanay and Mr. Deepanshu Agarwal, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2
1.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
December 31, 2019 passed by the Whole Time Member
('WTM' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of
India ('SEBI' for short). There is an inordinate delay of 1057
days in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged is, that the
appellant was facing several proceedings initiated by CBI which
they were pursuing and thereafter corona pandemic crept in as a
result the appellant could file the appeal within the stipulated
period.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we
find that controversy involved is squarely covered by a decision
of this Tribunal in T. Venkattram Reddy & Anr. vs SEBI
(Appeal No. 480 of 2022 decided on August 23, 2022).
3. For the reasons stated therein, the application for
condonation of delay is rejected as a result of which the appeal
is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
4. 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. Certified copy of 3
this order is also available from the Registry on payment of
usual charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
21.02.2023 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO SHAMRAO msb BHALBAR BHALBAR Date: 2023.02.23 12:24:21 +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