Shri Anandkumar Baldevbhai Patel vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 164 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed by statute can be condoned only where the appellant shows sufficient cause, meaning legal and adequate reasons; an assertion that is vague, unsupported by evidence, or not explained is not such cause, and condonation cannot be claimed as of right. The pendency of a related matter before a higher court is not, by itself, a legal ground for failing to file an appeal before the Tribunal within the statutory period, particularly where the higher court was on vacation during part of that period and the appellant has not explained the delay that followed the higher court's decision.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI DATE : 15.03.2019
Misc. Application No. 123 of 2018 And Appeal No. 164 of 2018
Shri Anandkumar Baldevbhai Patel 01, Shivnagar Society, Bhavpura, Kadi, Gujarat - 382715. ..... Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...... Respondent
Mr. Yogeh Jagia, Advocate with Mr. Chinmay Paradkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated June
7, 2016 passed by the Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to
as, 'WTM') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter
referred to as, 'SEBI') under Section 11(4) and 11B of the Securities
and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, 2
'SEBI Act') read with Regulation 11 of Securities and Exchange
Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market), 2003. The appeal is accompanied with
an application for condonation of delay.
2. There is a delay of 651 days in filing the appeal. The ground
urged is that an appeal filed by SEBI in a related matter was taken up
for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the
present appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. It was
urged that sufficient cause was shown and, therefore, the delay in
filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.
3. Having perused the application for condonation of delay and
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is
an inordinate delay of 651 days in filing the present appeal. By no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the appellant was pursuing
the matter diligently. The contention that the appellant was pursuing
a related matter in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, could
not file the appeal in our opinion an afterthought and, in case, not a
sufficient ground. In fact, the assertion made is vague and that
adequate reason has not been given.
4. Under Section 23L of the SEBI Act, an appeal has to be filed
within 45 days of the impugned order. If sufficient cause has been 3
shown, the delay in filing the appeal after the stipulated period can be
condoned.
5. In Balvant Singh (dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. [(2010) 8
SCC 685] decided on July 8, 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
explained the expression "sufficient cause" to mean the presence of
legal and adequate reasons.
6. In the instant case, the impugned order is dated June 7, 2016.
The appeal should have been filed within 45 days. The mere fact that
an appeal was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a
legal ground for not filing an appeal before the Tribunal. In any
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was closed for the summer
vacations and consequently, there was enough time for the appellant
to file an appeal. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
delivered the judgment on September 20, 2017 and the present
appeal was filed on May 15, 2018. No explanation has been given as
to why the appeal could not be filed soon after the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that adequate legal reasons
have not been provided. The assertion made is patently vague
without any evidence to support such statement. No bonafide
reasons have been given in condoning the delay. It is the 4
requirement of law that an application for condoning the delay
cannot be allowed as a matter of right especially in the absence of
adequate and legal reasons.
8. Consequently, Misc. Application No. 123 of 2018 for
condonation of delay is misconceived and is rejected, as a result of
which the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 15.03.2019 Prepared & Compared by PTM
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
- Shri Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel vs Sebi15 March 2019
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