Samir Das And Others vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India

Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since a common issue arises, both the appeals are being taken up together.

The present appeals have been filed against the order dated January 22, 2016 passed by the Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI'). There is a delay of 2030 days in the filing of the appeals and accordingly applications for condonation of delay have been filed. The ground urged is that the appellants were never aware of the proceedings initiated by the WTM and only came to know for the first time when the recovery certificate was issued on July 30, 2021.

In this regard, we had directed the respondent to file a reply showing proof of service. In the reply, we find that some authorised representative had appeared on behalf of the appellant and took time which was recorded in the proceedings and thereafter did not appear. In so far as the impugned order is concerned, the same was delivered at the address which is shown in the memo of appeal. The acknowledgement card indicates that some person had received it on behalf of the appellant. In so far as Debabrata Ghosh is concerned, there is a bald denial in the rejoinder contending that no such instructions were issued to any person nor the impugned order was ever served. In so far as Sameer Das is concerned, we find that no rejoinder has been filed.

Considering the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that a bald denial has been made by the appellants which is insufficient. It appears that the appellants were aware of the proceedings but chose not to appear. The impugned order was delivered at the address shown by the appellants and consequently, we do not find any error. The contention that they were unaware cannot be believed. There is an inordinate delay in the filing of the appeals and consequently, such inordinate delay cannot be condoned. The application for condonation of the delay is rejected, as a result of which, the appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.

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.