IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Misc. Application No. 33/2006
Appeal No. 119/2006
Date of decision: 20.10.2006
Spectrum.Com Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India Respondent
None for the applicant
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 November 28, 2003 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of Rs.1 crore on the appellant herein for not complying with the summons issued repeatedly seeking information during the course of investigations into the price manipulation of the scrip of Shonkh Technologies International Ltd. (for short the company). The Securities and Exchange Board of was investigating into the alleged price manipulation of the scrip of the company 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 thereby causing hindrance to the investigations. There is a delay of 650 days in filing the present appeal. According to the averment made in the memorandum of appeal the impugned order was received by the appellant on September 3, 2004. If the period of limitation is calculated from this date the delay is of 650 days. The appellant has, however, wrongly calculated the days and it is averred in the memorandum of appeal that there is a delay of 604 days only. Be that as it may, the only ground on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that the company was not possessed of sufficient funds to affix court fee on the memorandum of appeal. It is stated in the application of condonation of delay that after the rules relating to court fee were amended and the fee reduced, the appellant managed to collect the requisite amount to file the present appeal. It may be mentioned that the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2000 were amended in the year 2005 whereby the quantum of fee was reduced. We do not think that this is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The reason mentioned in the application does not make out a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. 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 court/ tribunals are normally liberal in condoning the delay in filing an appeal because no client would be interested in delaying the filing of 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 that belated appeal cannot be entertained. In the instant case, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown for the inordinate delay, and therefore, we have no hesitation in rejecting the application which stands dismissed.
Sd/-Justice N. K. SodhiPresiding OfficerSd/-C. BhattacharyaMemberSd/-R. N. BhardwajMember