IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI

Misc. Application No. 36 of 2006

in

Appeal No. 133 of 2006

 

 Date of Decision   10.11.2006

 

M/s. R.C. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd.	……	Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India	……	Respondent

 

Present :  Mr.  Zal T. Andhyarujana & Mr. Deepak Shah, Advocates                   for the appellant

 

                  Dr. Poornima 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 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2003 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 from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) during the course of the investigation proceedings.  The Board was investigating into the alleged price rigging and market manipulation of the scrip of Shonk Technologies International Ltd. and it was during the course of this investigation that the appellant withheld the information by not complying with the summons.

   2.            There is a delay of 998 days in filing the appeal though according to the appellant the delay is only 257 days.  The appeal was filed on 14.10.2004 which was beyond the period of limitation.  The memorandum of appeal was accompanied with a demand draft of Rs. 5000/- only towards the court fee.  When the appeal was presented in the Registry the same was not entertained though the date of presentation was noted thereon.  A notice dated 2.12.2004 was issued to the appellant on the address mentioned by it in the memorandum of appeal for service of notice informing it that the requisite fee had not been paid and even though the appeal was barred by time there was no application seeking condonation of delay.  It was also pointed out by the office that there was no Board resolution authorising the person who had presented the appeal on behalf of the appellant company.  Despite this notice and the deficiencies pointed out by the office the appellant took no steps to rectify the same.  The penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer had not been deposited by the appellant and therefore the Board by its letter dated 1.6.2006 informed the appellant that by not depositing the penalty amount it had made itself liable to prosecution under Section 24(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.   It was on receipt of this notice that the appellant appears to have taken some steps to pursue the appeal which was presented in this Tribunal on 14.10.2004.   A sum of Rs.50,700/- was paid on 26.6.2006 by way of demand draft.  On receipt of this amount the appellant was informed that the court fee was inadequate and that a sum of Rs. 1,00,700/- had to be paid.  The balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the appellant only on 16.10.2006.  This being the factual position, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay was only of 257 days.  The learned counsel for the respondent Board has rightly calculated the period and the delay comes to 998 days.

   3.            The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay.  We have perused the application and find that the appellant has made wrong averments therein to seek condonation.  It is stated therein that the notice sent by the Registry of this Tribunal was on the wrong address.  When we pointed out to the learned counsel that the address at which the notice was sent was the one which the appellant had mentioned in the memorandum of appeal for the purpose of service of notices, the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that notices were sent on the correct address.  The only ground mentioned for seeking condonation of delay is the inability of the appellant to arrange for Rs. 1 lac towards court fee.  We are unable to accept this plea.  The appellant has not stated as to why it could not arrange for the amount earlier.  No explanation is forthcoming in this regard.  What appears to us is that the appellant had taken no interest in pursuing the appeal and it is only on receipt of the notice from the Board for prosecution that it started pursuing the  matter and even then it did not pursue it vigilantly.  To say the least, the appellant is guilty of culpable negligence and has taken the matter very casually.   In P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 556, the learned Judges of the Apex Court observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.  It may be mentioned that howsoever liberal one may be in dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the rights of the parties get crystallised when the authority below decides the lis and the time to file an appeal expires and unless some sufficient cause is shown the delay cannot be condoned.  We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that the appellant has not furnished any reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of 998 days in filing the appeal.  We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the application which we hereby do and dismiss the same.

 

Sd/-

Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer

Sd/-

R.N.Bhardwaj
Member

 

10.11.2006