V. Shankar vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.39 of 2021
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
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