Rajendra Prasad Rohit Kumar Huf vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 300 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appeal is dismissed for inordinate delay because the appellant offered no explanation for why it could not have been filed earlier after receiving the impugned order immediately upon its passing; the mere claim of consulting lawyers does not justify a delay of 380 days.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 29.03.2023
Misc. Application No. 314 of 2023 And Misc. Application No. 315 of 2023 And Appeal No. 300 of 2023
Rajendra Prasad Rohit Kumar HUF 38 NSB Road, DO Raniganj Burdwan Opp. Marwari Hospital, Raniganj, West Bengal- 713347. .....Appellant
Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, CA i/b R.A. Dhoot & Co. for the Appellant.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
December 28, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Officer ('AO'
for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India 2
('SEBI' for short) imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh. There is a
delay of 380 days in the filing of the appeal. The ground
urged is, that he was consulting his lawyers and thereafter
filed the appeal. We find from the perusal of the application
for condonation of delay that the impugned order was
received by him immediately after passing of the order.
No explanation whatsoever has been given as to why he could
not file the appeal earlier. In our opinion, there is an
inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal.
2. Apart from the aforesaid, the controversy involved in
the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this
Tribunal in Global Earth Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
vs. SEBI Appeal No. 212 of 2020 decided on September 14,
2020.
3. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on the
ground of inordinate delay. The miscellaneous application is
disposed of.
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. 3
Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry
on payment of usual charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
29.03.2023 MADHUKAR Digitally MADHUKAR signed by
SHAMRAO SHAMRAO BHALBAR Date: 2023.03.30
msb BHALBAR 10:53:16 +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