Miss Lucy
← All judgments

V. Shankar vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal19 January 2021Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An appeal may be dismissed at the threshold, without being entertained on the merits, where the delay in filing is inordinate and no valid or sufficient cause for it has been shown; a bare medical certificate reciting only a minor complaint, unsupported by any indication of confinement, does not constitute such cause, and the appellant's failure to file before the lockdown of March 2020 is not explained by the pandemic. Where the penalty imposed has already been fully undergone, and the appeal therefore presents no live relief, the Tribunal will not entertain the appeal merely to decide academic questions, particularly where the appeal is also out of time.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision: 19.1.2021Misc. Application No.10 of 2021AndAppeal No.39 of 2021V. ShankarFlat 12A/F1, Rose Garden Apts.,Thiruvengadasamy Street,Saligramam, Chennai - 600 093. ...AppellantVersusSecurities and Exchange Board of IndiaSEBI Bhavan,Plot No.C-4A, G Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, ...RespondentMumbai - 400051.Mr. Somasekhar S, Advocate with Ms. Yugandhara K.,Mr. Joby Mathew and Mr. Anshuman Sugla, Advocatesi/b. Joby Mathew & Associates for the Appellant.Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate i/b. ELP for theRespondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerDr. C.K.G. Nair, MemberJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member2Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)1.The appellant has challenged the order dated 31stDecember, 2019 passed by the Whole Time Member('WTM' for short) whereby he has been restrained to

provide secretarial services for a period of one year

and listed companies were directed not to engage the

appellant for a period of one year.

2. There is a delay of 300 days in the filing of the

appeal and, accordingly, an application has been filed

for condonation of delay. The ground urged, as

submitted by Mr. Joby Mathew is, that the appellant

was confined to bed rest for three months and

thereafter the covid pandemic kicked up and therefore

the appeal could not be filed within time. On this

basis, the learned counsel urged that the delay may be

condoned.

3. We find from a perusal of the application for

condonation of delay that the medical certificate given 3

only indicates a slight back pain for which a

prescription was given for three days and there is

nothing to indicate that he was confined to bed rest for

three months. We are of the opinion that the appeal

could have been filed before the lockdown started on

25th March, 2020. There is an inordinate delay in filing

the appeal for which no valid or sufficient cause has

been stated. We are further of the opinion that the

penalty imposed has already been undergone by the

appellant and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the

appellant. We are of the opinion that an appeal cannot

be entertained only to decide academic questions

especially when there is an inordinate delay in the

filing of the appeal.

4. In view of the aforesaid, the application for

condonation of delay is dismissed as a result of which

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

5. The present matter was heard through video

conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it 4

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 signed copy of this order. Parties will

act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax

and/or email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala Digitally signed by Presiding Officer RAJALAKS RAJALAKSHMI NAIR H

HMI H NAIR Date: 2021.01.20 16:23:40 +05'30'

Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

19.1.2021 RHN

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