BEFORE THE
SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 14.01.2019
Misc. Application No. 410 of 2018
In
Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018
And
Appeal No. 208 of 2018
Meeta Bipin Kumar Shah
1/1, Nupur Apartment,
Maninagar,
Ahmedabad – 380 008.

….. Applicant
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. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b R.V.
Legal for the Applicant.
Mr. Aditya Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate and
Ms. Vidhi Jhawar, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
Misc. Application No. 410 of 2018:1.

The application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal of the
applicant was rejected by an order dated June 29, 2018. An application for
recall of the said order has been filed by the applicant in Appeal No. 208 of
2018. Learned counsel for the applicant states that she was never served
with the notice from the Registry of this Tribunal.

2
2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having
perused the record, we find that the notices were sent which came back
unserved.

3.

In the light of the aforesaid, the order dated June 29, 2018 is recalled.

The recall application is allowed and the Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018
and the appeal are restored to its original number.

Misc. Application No. 173 of 2018:-
1.

The appellant has filed an application for condoning the delay of 660
days in filing the appeal. The grounds for condoning the delay are depicted
in paragraph 3.2 of the application as under:-
(a)
On receipt of the impugned Order, the Appellant was
diligently pursuing the matter with her legal advisors, to
prepare and file the present Appeal.

(b)
The Appellant was unable to file the said appeal within the
permitted time frame because of the circumstance and nonavailability of required funds.

(c)
The Appellant being a common person was not aware about
SEBI Rules and Regulations and in turn has to take guidance
from Friends and Relatives to prepare Appeal hence the delay.

(d)
The Appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time of 45
days due to time taken by the Appellant to seek legal advice so
there has been an inordinate delay of filing the present appeal.

3
2.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that they
were diligently pursuing the matter with her legal advisors to prepare the
appeal. Further, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period on
account of non-availability of the required funds. It was also urged that the
appellant is a housewife and was not aware of the SEBI Rules and
Regulations. The appellant has consequently prayed that the entire delay of
660 days be condoned on payment of cost. In support of her submission the
appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No. 4649 of 2006 (Noted Infotech P. Ltd. vs. Securities & Exchange Board
of India decided on August 04, 2008) wherein the Supreme Court condoned
the delay of 720 days on payment of cost of Rs. 1 lakh. It was urged that in
similar circumstances the delay of 660 days should be condoned by this
Tribunal on payment of similar cost. The appellant also relied upon a
decision of the Supreme Court in Ummer vs. Pottengal Subinda, 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 199 on the proposition that the appellant is not required to
explain the delay of each day till the date of filing the appeal and that if
plausible grounds are indicated then that would be sufficient grounds for
condoning the delay. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant has also
relied upon a decision in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. vs.
Gobardhan Sao and Ors. (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 195 wherein the
Supreme Court held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a
liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence
or inaction or want of bonafides is imputable to a party.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that
there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and nothing has been
indicated as to why the appeal could not be filed earlier especially when the
appellant was taking legal advice. Further, no proof has been filed to
4
indicate that there was non-availability of requisite funds. The respondent
further contended that the appellant is not a housewife but is also Director in
two of the firms and therefore she is aware of the SEBI Rules and
Regulations and cannot be said to be in ignorance of the law. In support of
their contention, the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors. (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 685 wherein the expression “sufficient cause” was
explained to imply the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The learned
counsel thus contended that legal and adequate reasons have not been
indicated in the instant case and that the grounds mentioned are patently
vague.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is
an inordinate delay of 660 days in filing the present appeal. By no stretch of
imagination it can be said that the appellant was pursuing the matter with
her legal advisor. In our opinion, such ground is patently misconceived and
an afterthought. Further, nothing has been indicated by the appellant with
regard to non-availability of requisite funds. Such allegations made are
patently vague without any evidence to support such statement. We also find
that the appellant has stated that she is housewife but we find from the
impugned order that she also is also a Director in two firms, namely, Parvati
Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Pratik Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

5.

We also find that appellant’s husband Bipin Kumar Shah was a
Director and had filed Appeal No. 376 of 2017 which was dismissed along
with other connected appeals by judgment dated June 28, 2018 by this
Appellate Tribunal. We also find that six other appeals were also filed, the
leading appeal being Appeal No. 303 of 2016 which was dismissed by
5
common Judgment dated June 28, 2018. Review Application was filed
which was also rejected by an order dated December 19, 2018.

6.

In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that there has been
an inordinate delay of 660 days in filing the appeal. We do not find any
sufficient cause much less plausible cause shown by the appellant. The
grounds given are patently vague and do not imply the presence of legal and
adequate reasons. No doubt, the Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of
judicial discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient cause or adequate
reason is given. However, in the instant case, we find that while taking into
account the conduct of the appellant, no bonafide reasons have been given
in condoning the delay. It is the requirement of law that an application for
condoning the delay cannot be allowed as matter of right and even in a
routine manner on payment of cost especially in the absence of adequate and
legal reasons.

7.

For the reasons stated aforesaid, Misc. Application for condonation
of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal does not survive and is also
dismissed.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C.K.G. Nair
Member
14.01.2019
Prepared and compared by:msb