T. Venkattram Reddy & Anr. vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 23.08.2022 Misc. Application No. 763 of 2022 And Appeal No. 480 of 2022 1. T. Venkattram Reddy Plot No. 54, House No.8-2-703/A-6-C, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. 2. T. Vinayak Ravi Reddy Plot No. 53, House No.8-2-703/A-6-C, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. ... Appellants Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Advocate with Ms. Sabeena Mahadik, Advocate i/b Visesha Law Services for the Appellants. Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate with Mr. Deepanshu Agarwal, Mr. Shourya Tanay, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent. 2 CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') dated December 31, 2019 which was received by the appellants on January 16, 2020. 2. There is a delay of 869 days in the filing of the appeal.

The ground urged is that the appellants were facing several proceedings initiated by CBI which they were pursuing and thereafter the Covid pandemic crept in. As a result, they could only file the appeal in July 2022. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we do not find any sufficient reason to condone this inordinate 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 3 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 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" 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 4 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 not find any legal or adequate reasons to condone the delay. 8. The application for condonation of delay is rejected as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. 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 signed copy of this order. Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges. Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member Ms. Meera Swarup RAJALA Digitally by signed Technical Member 23.08.2022 KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H Date: 2022.08.29 H NAIR 10:09:52 +05'30' PTM