BEFORE THE
SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 23.04.2019
Misc. Application No. 391 of 2018
And
Appeal No. 442 of 2018
Mr. Punaji Tanaji Raut
Jai Bhavani Janhit Seva Sangh,
MS Patil Wadi, Shiv Shankar Chawl,
Behind Brahmandev Mandir, Ghatla,
Chembur (East), Mumbai – 400 071.

…Appellant
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. Rupesh Bhalshankar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Kaushal Parsekar, Advocate i/b Legasis Partners 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 (Oral)
1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order of the
Adjudicating Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India
(‘SEBI’ for short) dated September 30, 2008 imposing a penalty
for violation of Regulation 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of
2
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003
(‘PFUTP Regulations’ for short). The present appeal was filed
on November 5, 2018 along with an application for condoning a
delay of 10 years and 5 days. The ground urged in the
application for condoning the delay is, that the appellant was not
aware of the impugned order as he was never served with a
copy of the impugned order. Further, he had no legal knowledge
about filing of the appeal within 45 days from the date of the
impugned order.

2.

The application has been vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the respondent contending that no legal or
adequate reasons have been given for condoning the delay and
that the grounds for condoning the delay is not bonafide and is
an afterthought.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some
length we find that there is an inordinate delay of more than 10
years in filing the present appeal. By no stretch of imagination
we find that the appellant was pursuing the matter diligently.
The contention that the appellant was not aware of the
impugned order dated September 30, 2008 is patently
misconceived and incorrect. We find that when the penalty
amount pursuant to the adjudication order was not paid by the
3
appellant the respondent initiated prosecution proceedings
before the SEBI Special Court under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 being SEBI Special Case
No. 2 of 2013 (Old C.C. No. 07-SW-2011). In this prosecution
case one of the documents relied by SEBI was the adjudication
order dated September 30, 2008 which was Exhibit – 11. In
these proceedings the appellant appeared and contested and the
defence taken before the SEBI Special Court was that parallel
adjudication proceedings were going on against KNC Shares
and Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the adjudication order passed by
SEBI was set aside by the Tribunal and therefore the amount of
penalty was not payable. Insofar as the impugned order against
the appellant is concerned the appellant contended before the
SEBI Special Court that the enquiry as per Rule 6 of SEBI
(Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by
Adjudicating Officers) Rules, 1995 was not properly held by the
Adjudicating Officer and therefore the amount was not payable
as per the impugned order.

4.

In the light of the assertion made by the appellant in the
prosecution proceedings initiated by SEBI before the SEBI
Special Court it is clear that the appellant was aware of the
impugned order dated September 30, 2008 since long and
consequently the contention that the appellant was not aware of
4
the impugned order or he was not served with the impugned
order cannot be believed.
5.

In our opinion, no sufficient cause exists to condone the
inordinate delay. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh &
Ors.[(2010) 8 SCC 685] the Supreme Court explained that the
expression ‘sufficient cause’ means the presence of legal and
adequate reasons. In the instant case we find that there are no
legal and adequate reasons. The ground mentioned in the
application is not boanfide but an afterthought.

6.

In the light of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and
in the absence of legal and adequate reasons, the application for
condonation of delay is rejected, as a result, the appeal is also
dismissed.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C.K.G. Nair
Member
Sd/Justice M.T. Joshi
Judicial Member
23.04.2019
Prepared and compared by:msb