Parvati Minerals Private Limited vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 25.03.2021

Misc. Application No. 182 of 2021 And Misc. Application No. 183 of 2021 And Misc. Application No. 174 of 2018 And Misc. Application No. 344 of 2021 And Appeal No. 163 of 2021

Parvati Minerals Private Limited E-205 (LGF) Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, South Delhi - 110 048. ...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.

Mr. Jyoti A. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1.

Appeal was filed belatedly. Certain objections were raised

by the Registry which was required to be complied with and the

defects were required to be removed within a stipulated period.

Since the same was not done within the stipulated period,

lodging of the appeal was declined. However, Misc. Application

No. 174 of 2018 was filed on June 12, 2018 praying for the

restoration of the appeal on the ground that defects have been

removed and the delay that was caused in curing the defects was

beyond their hands as they had applied for a certified copy of

the impugned order before the SEBI which took its own time.

Considering the aforesaid, the cause shown is sufficient the

Misc. Application No. 174 of 2018 is allowed. Misc.

Application No. 182 of 2021 and Misc. Application No. 183 of

2021 is accordingly disposed of.

2. The appeal has been filed against the order dated August

12, 2016 passed by the Whole Time Member („WTM‟ for short)

of the Securities and Exchange Board of India („SEBI‟ for

short). There is a delay of 590 days in the filing of the appeal

and accordingly an application for condonation of the delay has

been filed. The ground urged is, that the appellant was diligently

pursuing the matter and was consulting their lawyers and trying 3

to collate the files and documents and therefore the delay should

be condoned.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do

not find any sufficient cause shown for condoning this

inordinate delay. The reasons given is neither bonafide nor

sufficient to condone this inordinate delay.

4. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 the Supreme Court held that the

discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially

based on facts and circumstances of each case and that 9

sufficient cause cannot be given a liberal interpretation if lack of

bonafide is attributed to a party. The Supreme Court further held

that delay cannot be condoned on equitable ground beyond the

limits permitted expressly by statute.

5. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and Ors. (supra)

held that the expression "sufficient cause‟ should receive a

liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no

negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a

party. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in

Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535.

4

6. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, (2010)

8 SCC 685 Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient

cause" means the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The

decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no

avail and, in any case, not applicable in the present

circumstance of the case.

7. This Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of judicial

discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient or adequate

reason is given. It is also a settled proposition of law that the

law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has

to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.

The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on

equitable grounds as held by the Supreme Court in Basawaraj

and Anr. (supra). In the instant case we do find any legal or

adequate reasons to condone the delay.

8. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the Misc. Application No.

344 of 2021 for condonation of delay is rejected as a result of

which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. 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 5

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 25.03.2021 by RAJALAKSHMI KSHMI HDate:

NAIR 2021.03.30

msb H NAIR 11:10:07 +05'30'