Pawan Kumar Agarwal vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 675 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay of 319 days in filing an appeal may be condoned only where sufficient cause is shown; negligence of the appellant's authorised representative in failing to file within time is not, of itself, a ground for condonation of that delay, and where no such cause is made out the application for condonation is to be rejected and the appeal dismissed as time-barred.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Pawan Kumar Agarwal 22, Jai Ram Villa, 249-B, G.T. Road, 2nd Floor, Liluah, Howrah - 711 204 West Bengal. ..... Appellant
(By Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, CA for the Appellant)
AND: Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
(By Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent-SEBI) 2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SECURITEIS AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2023 PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SEBI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Per: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)
We have heard Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot,
Authorised Representative for the appellant and Mr. Manish
Chhangani, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. There is a delay of 319 days in the filing this appeal. In
support of the plea for condonation of delay, it is stated thus:
"6. All the papers for Filing of SAT Appeal were given to Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot on 31st December 2023. He could not file SAT Appeal IN TIME. For this Act of negligence, Appellant cannot be punished."
3. Shri Dhoot for the appellant submitted that for his
mistake, the appellant cannot be made to suffer. We are
unable to persuade ourselves to accept the said submission.
We find no merit in the application for condonation of delay.
3 We have taken the same view in similar appeals 1 filed
Shri Dhoot. Hence, the prayer for condonation of delay is
rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
4. Pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of.
No costs.
Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 11.02.2025 MADHUKAR BHALBAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR BHALBAR Date: 2025.02.14 14:20:49 +05'30'
msb
1 Appeals No. 706, 708, 709 and 710 of 2024 decided on 19.12.2024.
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