Sharad Ramchandra Ghadi vs Sebi

Date of Decision : 06.05.2021

Misc. Application No. 112 of 2021 And Appeal No. 310 of 2021

Sharad Ramchandra Ghadi 3/4, Bhakti Niwas, Mahadev Nagar, Alkapuri Nalasepara East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-401 209. ...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. Dattatray Pathak, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, 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.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

June 25, 2019 passed by the Whole Time Member ('WTM' for

short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for

short) whereby the appellant has been restrained from accessing

the securities market for a period of three years and also has

been directed to disgorge an amount of Rs. 3 lakh. There is a

delay of 575 days in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged

is, that he was diligently pursuing the matter through legal

advisors to file the present appeal and that he could not file the

appeal within the stipulated period on account of non-

availability of the required funds. It was also stated that the

appellant was not aware of SEBI Rules, Regulations and had to

take guidance from the friends and relatives to prepare the

appeal. Hence, it was prayed that delay was not deliberate and

the delay, if any, should be condoned.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we

find that there is an inordinate delay in the filing of the present

appeal. The ground shown is not sufficient, nor there are any

adequate or legal reasons. We find that the appellant was duly

aware of the impugned order, yet it took him more than one and 3

half years to approach this Tribunal. Accordingly, we do not

find any sufficient reasons to condone this inordinate delay.

3. 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 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 4

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

of the case.

6. 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.

7. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the application for

condonation of delay lacks merit and is rejected, as a result of

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

8. 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 Private Secretary 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.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member RAJALA Digitally signed 06.05.2021 by

KSHMI RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H

msb Date: 2021.05.06 H NAIR 18:48:29 +05'30'