Zafar Younus Sareshwala & Anr. vs Sebi

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 14.7.2022 Misc. Application No.632 of 2021 And Misc. Application No.633 of 2021 And Appeal No.438 of 2021 1. Zafar Younus Sareshwala 2. Uves Younus Sareshwala B Wing, 4th Floor, Shalimar Complex, Mahalaxmi Five Roads, Paldi, Ahmedabad -380 007. ...Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent Mr. B. M. Chatterji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Maitri Malde, Advocates i/b. Mr. Ranit Basu for the Appellants. Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Yash Garach, Ms. Shefali Shankar and Ms. Meghna Arvind, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 22nd June, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Officer. There is a delay of 591 days in the filing of the appeal. The ground urged is that one of the appellant Mr. Zafar Younus Sareshwala underwent a bypass surgery on 12th March, 2020 and, consequently, the delay may be condoned.

It was also urged that against the order dated 22nd June, 2018 the Company had filed appeal no.62 of 2019 which was dismissed as not maintainable by an order dated 28th January, 2020. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed by the Directors. 2. The contention so raised and urged before us does not hold any water. The impugned order is dated 22nd June, 2018. Nothing has been indicated in the application as to why the appellant could not earlier file an appeal challenging the order dated 22nd June, 2018. 3. In our opinion, nothing came in the way of the appellant in challenging the order dated 22nd June, 2018. 4. In our opinion, sufficient cause has not been shown. An appeal is required to be filed within 45 days under Section 15T of the SEBI Act and delay in the filing of an appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. 5. 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. 6. 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 4 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 5 not find any legal or adequate reasons to condone the delay. 9. In view of the inordinate delay, the application is rejected as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay with no order as to costs. Misc. application no.632 of 2021 is also disposed of accordingly. 10. 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 Technical Member RAJALA Digitally by signed 14.7.2022 KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H Date: 2022.07.21 RHN H NAIR 10:54:05 +05'30'