Shri Dipak Patel vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI DATE : 15.03.2019

Misc. Application No. 141 of 2018 And Appeal No. 189 of 2018

Shri Dipak Patel C/o Darshan R. Khamar Constituted Attorney of Dipak Patel 3, Ansuya Society, Karannagar Road, Behind Raja Avenue, Kadi - 382715 Dist - Mehsana, Gujarat. ..... 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. 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 2

referred to as, 'SEBI') under Section 11(4) and 11B of the Securities

and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as,

'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 670 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 670 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.

3

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

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 June 1, 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 4

without any evidence to support such statement. No bonafide

reasons have been given in condoning the delay. It is the

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. 141 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