Securities Appellate Tribunal
Sharmila Raj Thackeray vs Sebi on 24 September, 2021
Author: Tarun Agarwala
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision: 24.9.2021
Misc. Application No.601 of 2020
And
Appeal No.118 of 2020
1.Sharmila Raj Thackeray Flat No.1, 3rd Floor, Krishna Kunj, M.B. Raut Road, 76, Shivaji Park Scheme, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028.
2. Swati Sandesh Mayekar 218, Madhusheela, Bandra Band Stand, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050.
3. Sandesh Madhukar Mayekar 218, Madhusheela, Bandra Band Stand, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050.
4. Shivani Sandesh Mayekar 218, Madhusheela, Bandra Band Stand, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050.
5. Sunetra Gangadher Limaye (through her legal heir Swati S. Mayekar) 169/D, Laxmi Niwas, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai-400 014.
6. Rajan Hemchandra Gupte Rajdeep, 143, Lt Dilip Gupte Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400016.
2
7. Arun Sadashiv Bhide A-3/6, Satya Darshan Society, Malpa Dongri Road No.3, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093.
8. Madhav Gangadhar Natu 20, Avishkar, 3 Mahant Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057.
9. Shilpa Rajan Gupte Rajdeep, 143, Lt. Dilip Gupte Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400016.
10. Vibha Ajit Vaze 8, 9, Meghdoot, S.H. Paralkar Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028.
11. Ajit Mahadev Vaze 8, 9, Meghdoot, S.H. Paralkar Marg, Shivaji Park, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400028.
12. Vidya Vinayak Wagle D-202, Shiv Parvati Society, Chincoli Bunder Road, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400064.
13. Felicila Lobo Genesis Villa, St. Francis Av. Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400054.
14. Prodigy Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
169/A, Mayur Niwas, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai - 400 014. ..... Appellants Versus 3
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051.
2. SMC Global Securities Ltd.
11/6B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110005.
3. Sunchan Securities Ltd.
(Official Liquidator of Bombay High Court) Bank of India Building, Fort, Mumbai.
4. Sunil Mansinghani 18/4, Navjivan Society, Mori Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 400016.
5. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Exchange Plaza, Plot No.C/1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondents Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mangesh Sawant, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent no.1.
Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate i/b. Prakash Shah & Associates for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, Mr. Aditya Vyas and Mr. Dhruv Jadhav, Advocates i/b. MKA & Co. for the Respondent No.5. 4 CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1. The appellants have filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2017 passed by the defaulter‟s committee of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. („NSE‟ for short). There is a delay of 1350 days in the filing of the appeal. A misc. application no.601 of 2021 has been filed for condoning the delay. The ground urged is, that NSE does not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the jurisdiction lies with Securities and Exchange Board of India.
2. In our view this is no sufficient, adequate or legal ground for condoning the inordinate delay.
3. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 the Supreme Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judicially based on facts and circumstances of each case and that sufficient cause cannot be given a liberal interpretation if lack of bonafide is attributed to a party. The Supreme Court further 5 held that delay cannot be condoned on equitable ground beyond the limits permitted expressly by statute.
4. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao and Ors. (supra) held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Madanlal vs. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535. 12. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 685 Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause"
means the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no avail and, in any case, not applicable in the present circumstance of the case.
5. This Tribunal is possessed with the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay if sufficient or adequate reason is given. It is also a settled proposition of law 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. The court has no power to extend the period of 6 limitation on equitable grounds as held by the Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Anr (supra). In the instant case we do not find any legal or adequate reasons to condone the delay.
6. Consequently, on the ground of inordinate delay we reject the application for condonation of delay as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member RAJALA 24.9.2021 KSHMI Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI H NAIR Date: 2021.09.27 11:44:53 +05'30' RHN H NAIR