BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision: 26.4.2019
Misc. Application No.317 of 2018
And
Appeal No.380 of 2018
Mr. Sidhartha Kumar Barik
At Gobindpur, P.O. Kesharipur,
Via-Soro, Balasore – 756045.
Versus
1. Securities & Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 400051.
2. Real Vision International Limited
Plot No.N-6/432, 2nd Floor, In front of
Allahabad Bank, IRC Village,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar – 751015.
3. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Behera
At: Doulatabad, G.P. Choudwar
Municipality, P.S. Choudwar,
Cuttack – 754025.
4. Mr. Ashok Pattnaik
Plot No.432, Prachi Vihar, Palasuni,
Rasulgarh, Bhuvaneshwar – 751010.
5. Bidesi Behera
At. Girisola, Po. Kirapalli,
Ps. Bhanjanagar, Ganjum – 761119.
6. Devi Prasad Mohanty
Hakim Pada, Angul N.A.C.
Angul-759143.

….. Appellant
2
7. Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty
Nuahata, Banarpal, Angul-759128.
8. Prasanna Kumar Nayak
Patpur, Via-Bahugram, Ps. Salepur,
Cuttack.
9. Sukanta Biswal
At. Chakeisiani. Po. Rasulgarh,
PS. Mancheswar, Bhuvaneshwar,
Khurda, Pin – 751010.
10. Pabitra Kumar Rath
Paik Baghna Bereni-2, Po. Khamar
Sahi, Via-Sattapatna, Ps. Daspalla,
Nayagarh.

… Respondents
Ms. Kainaz Irani, Advocate with Mr. Balram Mohanty,
Advocate i/b. Mohanty & Associates for the Appellant.
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocate
i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent no.1.
None for the Respondent nos. 2 to 10.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice M.T. Joshi (Oral)
1.

Delay of 990 days (according to the applicant 252
days) in filing the appeal against the impugned order is
sought to be condoned by the applicant. The impugned order
dated 10th December, 2015 is against the present appellant
and other directors of Real Vision International Limited
(referred to hereinafter as ‘RVIL’). The said company and its
3
directors had allotted redeemable preference shares of face
value
of
Rs.10/-
totaling
to Rs.21,18,65,380/-. The
investigation purportedly revealed that without following any
guidelines and provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 money
was collected and there was nonpayment of the investor
money as the company had gone bust. This came to the
knowledge
of
the
respondent SEBI
upon
receiving
complaints. After hearing the parties the respondent SEBI
vide the impugned order dated 10th December, 2015, directed
the appellant and other directors to refund the money
alongwith interest @ 15 % p.a.
The appeal alongwith the present application is filed
on 1st September, 2018. Therefore, the present application
for condonation of delay is filed. According to the applicant,
he had initially challenged the said order in the Odisha High
Court. Though he was successful in getting ex-parte interim
relief ultimately upon hearing the parties the High Court on
13th November, 2017 held that the Writ Petition is not
maintainable and the same was therefore dismissed.
2.

The appellant claims that in the meantime another notice
was issued by the respondent. He therefore thought that he
can convince the respondent SEBI that the earlier order
4
passed by it was wrong and, therefore, he put the same plea
before Respondent no.1. Subsequent order dated 28.5.2018
was challenged by him by way of Appeal No.259 of 2018. It
was withdrawn on 17th August, 2018. Thereafter he filed
present application with the fresh appeal. Thus, claiming that
he was under wrong impression that the original order was
not required to be challenged he did not file any appeal and,
therefore, he sought condonation of the delay.
Respondent SEBI opposed the plea. It was submitted
that the delay is of 990 days. The appellant/applicant knew
that the order dated 10th December, 2015 is required to be
challenged. Therefore, he had even filed writ petition in the
High Court of Odisha. The same was dismissed on 13th
November, 2017 in which it was observed by the Odisha
High Court that the appeal is required to be filed before the
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. Still the appellant
did not file the appeal and, therefore, no sufficient cause is
made out.
3.

Heard Ms. Kainaz Irani assisted by Mr. Balram
Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.
Sumit Rai assisted by Chirag Bhavsar, learned counsel for
5
the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on
the ratio of
1. Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LRS. Vs. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another
decided on 3rd November, 2008 [(2008) 17 SCC 448].
2. Neeraj Jhanji vs. Commissioner of Customs &
Central Excise decided on 6th August, 2012 [(2012)
SCC Online All 4526.
4.

Upon hearing both sides in our opinion not only the
appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation but even the
grounds claimed by the applicant does not hold any water.
Even if it is assumed that the applicant was unaware of the
fact that the impugned order dated 10th December, 2015 was
required to be challenged by way of appeal, still he filed writ
petition in the High Court of Odisha. The High Court of
Odisha has even recorded that the appeal is to be filed in the
Securities
Appellate
Tribunal
in
its
order
dated
13th November, 2017. Still the appellant/applicant merely
challenged the recovery proceedings arising out of the
substantive order in this Tribunal. He subsequently withdrew
the same and thereafter the present appeal alongwith an
application for condonation of delay. This fact itself shows
6
that no sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.
Hence the following order: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
26.4.2019
Prepared and compared by
RHN