IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

 

                                       Condonation Application No. 1/205/2005

                                        Appeal No. 205/2005

Date of Hearing	21.12.2005
Date of Decision	21.12.2005

 

In the matter of:

 

Sandeep Merchant	Appellant – Represented by
	Mr. Bharat Merchant, Advocate
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board	Respondent –Represented by
of India	Mr. Ganapathi Subramanian, Manager

 

Coram:

 Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

C. Bhattacharya, Member

R. N. Bhardwaj, Member

 

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

 

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->   1.            <!--[endif]-->The adjudicating officer by his order dated 11^th April 2005 held the appellant guilty of violating the provisions of Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short “the Act”) for indulging in fraudulent and unfair trade practises relating to securities market. These violations attract penalty as prescribed under Section 15HA of the Act. He further found that there was no exact quantifiable figure available with regard to the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage derived by the appellant in regard to the default attributable to him though he had misutilised the stock exchange mechanism for personal and illegal gains. The violation was found to be serious and repetitive in nature and on this account he imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. Before passing the impugned order, the adjudicating officer issued a show cause notice to the appellant to which he did not file any reply, with the result, the adjudicating officer proceeded with the matter on the basis of the material available with him.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->   2.            <!--[endif]-->There is a delay of 196 days in filing the appeal. The memorandum of appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The only ground on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that the appellant’s mother was unwell on account of which he could not file the appeal within time. The mere ipse dixit of the appellant cannot be accepted in this regard and the plea taken in the application is not supported by any material, which could be accepted. There is no medical certificate forthcoming from any registered medical practitioner which could show that the mother of the appellant was ill and was in such a condition, which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within time. It is true that the Tribunal is normally liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeals, but nevertheless there has to be some sufficient cause shown for the delay. We are satisfied that no such cause has been shown in the present case and that the appellant is guilty of culpable negligence in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Moreover, the appellant did not appear before the adjudicating officer despite service and suffered an ex parte order.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->   3.            <!--[endif]-->In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

(Pronounced in Court)