Regent Chemicals Limited & Anr. vs Sebi

not challenge either the order of delisting of its company by the

order of 25 May 2017 nor challenged the determination of the 3

fair value done on 1 June 2017. On the other hand, it is reported

that the appellant submitted a valuation report on 8 May 2018

and then submitted balance sheets and annual reports to BSE

Limited on 15 October 2019 and 26 November 2019 and prayed

that the fair value determined by the independent valuer

appointed by the appellant should be considered and the fair

value determined by the BSE Limited should be reviewed. The

respondent by a communication dated 6 February 2020 rejected

the contention of the appellant holding that the fair value

determined on 1 June 2017 does not require any reconsideration

at this belated stage. The appellant, being aggrieved by the

aforesaid orders, has filed the present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri Prakash Shah, the learned counsel for

the appellant and Shri Tomu Francis, the learned counsel for the

BSE Limited. We find that there is an inordinate delay of more

than 3 years in approaching this Tribunal. No justification

whatsoever has been given as to why the appeal against the

order of 25 May 2017 or against the determination of the fair

value dated 1 June 2017 could not be challenged by the

appellant at that point of time. Nothing has been indicated in the

memo of appeal to show that they were pursuing any other 4

remedy. Merely by submitting a valuer's report after one year

from the passing of the impugned order and then again filing

the annual reports and balance sheets after a further period of 17

months does not entitle them to condone this inordinate delay.

We are of the opinion that the communication made by the

respondent by their letter dated 6 February 2020 does not extend

the period of limitation for questioning the veracity and/or the

legality of the order dated 25 May 2017 or 1 June 2017.

4. In view of the inordinate delay of more than 3 years in

filing the appeal and in the absence of any sufficient cause being

shown we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal

could not be condoned. The application for condonation of

delay is rejected, as a result of which, the appeal is also

dismissed with no order as to costs.

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 Presiding Officer on behalf of the bench

and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally 5

signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a

digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.

Sd/-

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2ab7954d5 Justice Tarun Agarwala AGARWAL 09c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404aa 38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.08.11 09:29:26 +05'30' Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

Sd/-

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 10.08.2020 msb