BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

Miscellaneous Application No.125 of 2012
And
Appeal No. 176 of 2012

Date of Decision: 18.9.2012

Dushyant Dayaldas   
1st Floor, Cama Building,  
Dalal Street, Mumbai – 4002023.  




  … Appellant  

Versus    

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India
   SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
   Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
   Mumbai – 400 051.
2. Bombay Stock Exchange Limited
   Bombay Stock Exchange Building,
   Dalal Street, Fort,
   Mumbai – 400 001.

… Respondents

Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Deepak Dhane, Advocate for Appellants.
Ms. Rachita Romani, Advocate for Respondent no.1.
Mr. Kingshuk Banerjee, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
CORAM : P. K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer (Offg.)
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member
Per : P. K. Malhotra (Oral)
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) conducted
investigation into the alleged price manipulation in the equity shares of Jyoti R esins and
Adhesives Ltd. in respect of transactions carried out in the year 1995. A fter considering
the investigation report and having come to the conclusion that there was mar ket
manipulation in the price of the scrip of th e company, the Board directed the stock
exchanges that as far as the auction proceeds are concerned the difference between the
auction price and the standard rate which have been retained by the stock exchanges
earlier, shall be impounded. In the process, an amount of ` 68,28,850 was impounded from
the appellant and the same was directed to be deposited in the investor s protection fund.

2

Thereafter, the appellant vide its letter dated May 15, 1997 requested the Board not to
deposit the said amount in the investors protection fund as it will be a loss to the appellant.
It is the case of the appellant that it has not received any reply to its repeated
representations to the Board. Hence this appeal.

2. The matter pertains to the year 1995 in which final decision was taken by the Board
   way back in 1997. No plausible explanation has come from the appellant which may
   persuade us to condone the delay of more than 15 years. In his application for condonation
   of delay, the appellant has stated that there is no specific order/communication impugned
   in the present appeal. Instead the appellant has impugned the inaction of the Board in
   passing order on the representations and reminders sent by the appellant. If that be so, all
   the more there is a reason that this appeal cannot be entertained because under section 15T
   of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act) the Tribunal can
   entertain an appeal only against “ an order” that may be passed either b y the Board or an
   adjudicating officer acting under the Act. Proviso to sub- section (3) of section 15T of the
   Act empowers the Tribunal to entertain appeal after the expiry of 45 days if it is satisfied
   that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period specified.
   Repeated representation to the authorit ies to review its decision is not a ground on which
   the delay can be condoned. T he amount impounded has been credited to the investor s
   protection fund way back in 1997. On the issue of condonation of delay in such cases this
   is what the Supreme Court has observed in the case reported as Balwa nt Singh (Dead) vs.
   Jagdish Singh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 685.
   “The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on
   the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be
   adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and
   circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right, as accrued in favour of
   one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by
   showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take
   away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the
   delay is directly a result of negligence, default or i naction of that party.
   Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice
   can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing
   its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of
   a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting
   vigilantly.”
3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant has been totally
   negligent in pursuing its remedy before the appropriate forum. No cause, much less a

3

sufficient cause has been shown in the application which may persuade us to consider
condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated above , we do not find any merit in the app lication for
condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Accordingly,
the appeal also stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

                     Sd/-    
                      P.K. Malhotra  
                   Member &  
  Presiding Officer (Offg.)  

                       Sd/-  

S.S.N. Moorthy
Member
18.9.2012
Prepared and compared by
RHN