Bhargav Ranchhodlal Panchal And Others vs Adjudicating Officer

Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

The appellant has challenged the order dated October 22, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (“AO” for convenience) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI” for convenience). The said appeal was presented on May 27, 2021. There is a delay in the filing of the present appeal and accordingly an application for condonation of delay has been filed.

According to the appellants the appellants came to know about the impugned order only on March 09, 2021 when recovery proceedings were initiated and, consequently, filed the appeal on May 27, 2021 and, therefore, there is only a delay of 38 days which may be condoned due to pandemic.

The delay application has been opposed by the respondent contending that the appellants had knowledge of the impugned order in October 2019 and, therefore, there is an undue delay in the filing of the appeal. In this regard, it was urged that the impugned order was sent by speed post which was refused and the endorsement of refusal was recorded in the covering letter. It was also contended that previously whenever summons were issued the same used to be refused by the appellants.

In rejoinder, the appellants have contended that they have never refused to receive the letter on October 29, 2019 or October 31, 2019. It was also contended that other orders sent by the respondent was duly received by the appellants on October 26, 2019 and, therefore, the question of refusing to accept the letter sent by the respondent did not arise.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused a record, we find that when the order which is sent by post is refused then there is a deemed presumption of sufficient service upon the appellants. This presumption of service is, however, rebuttable.

In the instant case, we find that the presumption has been rebutted by the appellants, namely, that they had never refused and, in support of his contention, contended that other letters sent by the respondent was duly received and therefore there was no question of refusing this letter which was sent by post.

We, further find that the show cause notice was issued in the year 2007 and the proceedings have continued till 2019.

Considering the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that in the larger interest of justice the benefit of doubt is given to the appellants.

We, consequently, condone the delay. The application is allowed. The appeal will be listed for admission and for final disposal on February 16, 2023.

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. Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges.