IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

Misc. Application No. 24/2006

IN

   Appeal No.105/2006   

           

Date of Decision: 25/08/2006

 

Zodiac.Com Solutions  Pvt.  Ltd.	Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India.	Respondent

 

 

Mr. Joby Mathew, Advocate  for the appellant.

Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate  for the respondent.

 

CORAM

 

          Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

          C. Bhattacharya, Member

          R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

Per:   Justice N. K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)

 

          This appeal is directed against the order dated December 10, 2003 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of Rs.1 crore on the appellant for not complying with the summons issued repeatedly thereby withholding crucial information during the course of the investigation proceedings.  The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) was investigating into the alleged price rigging and market manipulation of the scrip of Shonkh  Technologies Ltd. and it was during the course of this investigation that the appellant did not comply with the summons and is alleged to have  withheld material information from the Board.

          There is a delay of 700 days in filing the present appeal.  The memorandum of appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of the delay.  The only two grounds on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that an employee of the appellant company who was looking after its affairs had left the service and did not hand over the impugned order to the management and this fact came to its notice only when it was searching some other papers.  It is further stated that it was then that the appellant came to know that an appeal had to be filed and it contacted a lawyer to have the memorandum of appeal prepared.  It is further averred in the application that the appellant  was not possessed of sufficient means to file the appeal and it was only after it could  arrange the  amount of Rs.50,700/- that the present appeal has been filed.

          We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the application are of the view that the reasons mentioned therein do not make out a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time.  The fact that an employee had left the service of the appellant company is by itself no ground to condone this inordinate delay.  Moreover, this plea is vague and the appellant has not furnished any particulars thereof.   The appellant has filed the present appeal along with a court fee of Rs.50,700/- after arranging this amount and no reason has been stated as to why the said amount could not have been arranged earlier.  It appears that the appellant took the matter very casually and is guilty of culpable negligence in not filing the appeal in time. It is true that the courts/tribunals are normally liberal in condoning the delay in filing an appeal because no client would be interested in delaying the filing of the appeal because it would run counter to its/his interest but nevertheless some reasonable cause has to be shown for the  delay to take a liberal view in the matter.  Taking a liberal view in condoning delays does not mean that law of limitation has been given a go bye and unless  some sufficient cause is shown the appeal cannot be entertained.  In the instant case, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause is shown for the inordinate delay and, therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the application.

          In the result,  the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

Sd/-

Justice N. K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer

Sd/-

C. Bhattacharya
Member

Sd/-

R. N. Bhardwaj
Member

 

Mumbai,

Smn/25/08