Sukumar Subramanian vs Sebi

Sukumar Subramanian No. 1, Parthasarthy Street, M. C. Road, Old Washermanpet, Chennai - 600021. ..... 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. Ankit Lohia, Advocate with Ms. Prachi Pandya, Advocate i/b Corporate Attorneys for the Appellant. Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Sushant Yadav, Mr. Arnav Misra, Mr. Shehaab Roshan, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent.

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

January 2, 2019 passed by the Whole Time Member (hereinafter

referred to as „WTM‟) of Securities and Exchange Board of India

(hereinafter referred to as „SEBI‟). There is a delay of 356 days in

filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application for

condoning the delay. The ground urged is, that the appellant was a

director in the company and had resigned in January 2012 and did

not have access to the data and had to collate the same from the

company. It was also stated that it took some time for the appellant

to confirm and understand the import and content of the impugned

order and thereafter to collate the data from the company. It was also

urged that for the same issue the appellant had received two other

notices and, therefore, all this took time to file an appeal. It was

urged that there was no undue delay and the reasons for the delay is

bonafide which is liable to be condoned.

2. The application for condonation of delay has been opposed

by the respondent contending that no valid or cogent or legal grounds

have been given by the appellant and that there is an inordinate delay

in the filing of the appeal which cannot be condoned. 3

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of

the opinion that there is an inordinate delay in the filing of the

present appeal. The contention that it took some time for the

appellant to collate the data from the company is not borne out from

any evidence on record. No documents have been filed to show any

correspondence with the company. Further, all the material was

already with the appellant as he had filed a reply to the show cause

notice and had the necessary information and documents. Thus, the

contention that the appellant did not have any documents and had to

collate the data from the company appears to be an afterthought. We

find that no plausible explanation has been given for condoning the

delay.

4. 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.

5. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and Ors. (supra) held

that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal 4

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].

6. 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 avail and, in

any case, not applicable in the present circumstance of the case.

7. 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.

8. For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any valid

reasons to condone the delay. The application for condonation of 5

delay is dismissed as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed

with no order as to costs.

9. 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 signed copy of this order.

Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax

and/or email.

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2ab795

AGARWAL 4d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999727d40 4aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.11.17 16:44:25 +05'30'

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 17.11.2020 PTM