Santowin Corporation Limited vs Sebi

Order Reserved On: 01.02.2019 Date of Decision : 25.02.2019

Misc. Application No. 16 of 2019 And Appeal No. 10 of 2019

Santowin Corporation Limited Shop No. 5, Concord CHS Ltd., N.S. Road No. 10, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai- 400 049 ...Appellant

Versus

BSE Limited Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai- 400 001 ...Respondent

Ms. Prachi Pandya, Advocate with Ms. Vanessa Fernandes, Advocate i/b Corporate Attorneys for the Appellant.

Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani and Mr. Arka Saha, Advocates i/b Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member

Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala

1.

For the reasons stated in Appeal No. 469 of 2018 the appeal is

maintainable.

2. There is a delay of 83 days in filing the appeal. Having heard the

learned counsel for the parties, on this aspect we are of the opinion that

sufficient cause has been explained by the appellant which is adequate as 2

well as satisfactory and, therefore, we are of the opinion, that the delay of

83 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Supreme Court in

Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors.

(2002) 3 SCC 195 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 bonafides is imputable to a party.

Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the

application for condonation of delay is allowed.

3. List the appeal for admission on 28.02.2019.

Sd/-

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Sd/-

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 25.02.2019 Prepared & Compared By: PK