Vision Cinemas Ltd. And Others vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 85 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appeal filed beyond the period prescribed for it may be admitted only on a showing of sufficient cause for the delay; illness of some appellants for a short period, unaccompanied by any explanation for the remainder of the delay, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of a long delay in filing the appeal. Where the material before the Tribunal indicates that the delay was deliberately engineered to postpone the implementation of an order directing a public announcement and open offer, the Tribunal may infer that the delay was not bona fide, and may decline to condone it on that basis, dismissing both the condonation application and the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 21.08.2019
Misc. Application No. 93 of 2017 And Appeal No. 85 of 2017
1.
Vision Cinemas Ltd.
2. VASANTH Color Laboratories Ltd.
3. S. I. Media LLP
4. Bindiganavale Ranga Vasanth Kumar
5. Vishnu Vasanth
6. Vinitha Vasanth
7. Anitha Vasanth
302, Brigade Lavelle II, Lavelle Road, Bangalore - 560001. ..... Appellants
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 for the Appellants. Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Ms. Misbah Dada, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2
1. The Whole Time Member passed an order dated May 13, 2015
directing the appellants to make a public announcement within 45
days for the purpose of acquiring the shares of the target company in
accordance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 1997 and also pay interest at the rate of 10% on the
consideration to the shareholders. Against this order, an Appeal No.
352 of 2015 was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn by this
Tribunal by an order dated November 17, 2016 giving liberty to file a
fresh incorporating all the facts within 10 days from the date of the
order.
2. The appeal was not filed within the stipulated period of 10
days and was presented on March 6, 2017. Since there was a delay
of 99 days, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find
that no sufficient cause nor any plausible explanation has been given
for the delay in filing of the appeal beyond the stipulated period of 10
days. The only ground urged is that one of the appellants fell ill from
November 10, 2016 to December 14, 2016 and another appellant fell
ill from January 19, 2017 to February 2, 2017. 3
4. In our view, illness of the two of the appellants for a short
period does not justify the long delay in filing the appeal. We
somehow get this uncanny feeling that the entire purpose of delaying
the filing of the appeal was to prolong the implementation of the
impugned order dated May 13, 2015 which required the appellants to
make an open offer to the shareholders of the company within 45
days. Till date the said impugned order has not been implemented.
We further find that more than two and half years have elapsed since
the filing of the appeal and the appellant only took adjournment
whenever the appeal was listed for admission. These actions only
indicate the method adopted by the appellant in prolonging the
matter. We consequently, do not find any sufficient cause being
shown for condoning the delay. The Misc. Application is dismissed
as a result, the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member
21.08.2019 Prepared & Compared by PTM
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