IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

Appeal No. 135 of 2006

Date of Decision         17.11.2006

Present :  Mr.  Bharat Merchant, Advocate for the appellant

                  Dr. P. Advani, Advocate for the respondent     

Coram:

          Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer

            C. Bhattacharya, Member

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

            This appeal under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of Rs. 54 lacs on the appellant for not responding to the summons issued to him during the course of investigations thereby withholding material information from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board).

   2.            The Board conducted investigations into the trading in the scrip of Ransi Software India Ltd. (for short the Company).  The appellant herein had traded in the said stock.  The Board received some information that the promoters of the Company had issued shares to some entities for consideration other than cash allegedly overvaluing those entities and the said shares were issued on preferential basis.  The Bombay Stock Exchange refused to list the additional shares of the Company and during the course of the investigations which were ordered by the Board, the appellant was issued summons time and again to furnish the requisite information referred to therein.  He failed to do so and thereby withheld material information from the Board.  Adjudication proceedings were initiated.  Even before the adjudicating officer the appellant did not appear and the former was left with no option but to proceed ex-parte.  By the order under appeal, the adjudicating officer found that the appellant had failed to furnish material information during the course of the investigations and after calculating the unjust enrichment made by the appellant by withholding material information, the adjudicating officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 54 lacs on him.  Hence this appeal. 

   3.            At the outset the learned counsel appearing for the Board raised an objection that the appeal is barred by 352 days.  The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appeal was filed within time and that the objections raised by the office were complied with only after a lapse of 352 days.  The impugned order is dated 30.9.2005 and the period within which the appeal could be filed was 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.  The appellant presented the appeal on 22.11.2005 with a court fee of Rs. 5000/- only.  The office raised an objection that the court fee to the tune of Rs. 32,700/- was payable having regard to the amount of penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer.  Despite three letters written by the office calling upon the appellant to pay the court fee within reasonable time the same was deposited only on 28.9.2006.  The appeal will be deemed to have been presented on that day.  There is thus a delay of 352 days.  We cannot but observe that the appellant ignored the office letters issued to him requiring him to make up the deficiency in court fee.  To say the least, he has been guilty of culpable negligence.  There is no application filed seeking condonation of the delay.  In the circumstances, we cannot but dismiss the appeal as time barred which we hereby do.

Sd/-

Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer

Sd/-
 
C. Bhattacharya
Member