BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 09.08.2019
Misc. Application No. 408 of 2018
And
Appeal No. 467 of 2018
Jasmeet Kaur Mehta
(Deceased through Mr. Manmeet Singh
Mehta)
House No. 391-L, Model Town,
Ludhiana, Punjab 141 002.

….. Appellant
Versus
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.
Exchange Plaza, Block G, C 1,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.

… Respondent
Mr. Kunal Katariya, Advocate with Ms. Shweta Rankhambe,
Advocate i/b Aagam Doshi & Co. for the Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Chandarana, Advocate with Ms. Shreya Anuwal,
Advocate i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.

The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order
dated December 18, 2015 passed by the National Stock Exchange of
India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘NSE’). There is a delay of
2
1002 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application No. 408
of 2018 has been filed for condoning the delay. The ground urged in
the application is that after receiving the order from NSE the
appellant consulted their advocates in Ludhiana and due to limited
exposure of the securities laws in Ludhiana the appellant could not
get appropriate advice. Thereafter one of the appellant’s relatives
who live in Mumbai advised the appellant to approach the respondent
again and request them to reconsider and when the respondent failed
to reconsider the request, the present appeal was filed.

2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
under Section 23L of the Securities Contract (Regulations) Act, 1956
the appeal is required to be filed within 45 days from the date of the
impugned order. If sufficient cause has been shown, the delay in
filing the appeal after the stipulated period can be condoned.

3.

In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. [(2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 685], the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained
that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ means the presence of legal and
adequate reasons.

4.

In the instant case, we find that adequate and legal reasons have
not been provided. The assertion made in paragraph 5 of the Misc.
Application is patently vague and without any evidence to support
3
such statement. We further find that no bonafide reason has been
given in condoning the delay. It is a requirement of law that an
application for condoning the delay cannot be allowed as a matter of
right especially in the absence of any adequate and legal reasons.

5.

Consequently, Misc. Application 408 of 2018 for condonation
of the delay is misconceived and is rejected. As a result of which the
appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
Sd/Justice M. T. Joshi
Judicial Member
09.08.2019
Prepared & Compared by
PTM