Condonation Appln. No. 1/53/2006
in
Appeal No. 53 of 2006
Date of Decision
17.3.2006
K. Anjaneya Raju
Versus
1. Securities & Exchange Board of India
2. Engineers India Ltd.
3. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.
4. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum &
Natural Gas
5. Secretary, Ministry of Company Affairs
Present : Mr. S.D. Irani, Company Secretary for the appellant
Mr. Ravi Hegde, Advocate for the respondent no. 1
Mr. Chandan K.R., Advocate for the respondent no. 2
Mr. H.K. Varthan, Advocate for the respondent no. 4 & 5
None for the respondent no. 3
Coram:
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
C. Bhattacharya, Member
R. N. Bhardwaj, Member
Per: Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (oral)
There is a delay of more than three months in filing the appeal. The memorandum of appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of the delay. We have perused the application and find that no ground whatsoever has been made out for condoning the delay nor any sufficient cause shown for not filing the appeal within time. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the directions issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short “the Board”) investigated the complaints filed by the appellant and found that Engineering India Ltd. (for short “the Company”) had not violated any provision of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulation 2003. It was, however, found that there was some delay on the part of the Board of Directors of the Company in communicating to the Stock Exchanges its decision to defer the payment of special bonus from its reserves. The delay caused in this regard violates Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement and the Board has directed the Stock Exchanges to take appropriate action in the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the Company informs us that in pursuance to the directions issued by the Board, it (Company) received notices from the Stock Exchanges to which appropriate reply has been furnished. The delay that was caused by the Company in informing the Stock Exchanges about its decision to defer the payment of special bonus does not appear to be something very serious that may call for any stringent action. The appellant is unnecessarily pursuing the matter further and the present appeal in our opinion is wholly misconceived. We were about to dictate the order when the learned representative appearing for the appellant made a request that he maybe allowed to withdraw the appeal.
2. Dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
R.N. BhardwajMember