Appeal Dismissed: No Costs, 439-Day Delay Not Condoned, SEBI Order Upheld for Refund on Preference Shares.

The appeal was dismissed by the court, with no costs awarded, after considering the appellant's request for condonation of a 439-day delay in filing. The appellant's challenge to the SEBI order, which required a refund of money collected through Redeemable Preference Shares, was rejected. SEBI found the appellant liable for funds collected up to the date of ceasing to be a director, dismissing claims of prior resignation and lack of involvement in company affairs. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, challenge to SEBI order directing refund of money collected through issuance of Redeemable Preference Shares, appellant's resignation and involvement in company activities, validity of appellant's contentions, liability of appellant for refund amount.

Analysis:
1. Delay Condonation Application:
- The applicant sought condonation of a 439-day delay in filing the appeal, which was granted by the authorities for reasons stated in the application.

2. Challenge to SEBI Order:
- The appeal was filed to challenge an order by SEBI directing the company and its directors to refund money collected through Redeemable Preference Shares with interest.
- The appellant argued resignation and lack of involvement in company affairs, but SEBI dismissed these contentions.
- The appellant's letter intending to discontinue as a director contradicted claims of earlier resignation, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

3. Liability for Refund Amount:
- SEBI acknowledged the appellant's liability only for the amount collected by the company up to the date of ceasing to be a director.
- The appeal was ultimately dismissed with no costs awarded, based on the findings and lack of merit in the appellant's case.

This judgment addressed issues of delay condonation, challenge to SEBI order for refund, appellant's resignation claims, involvement in company activities, liability for refund amount, and ultimately dismissed the appeal based on lack of merit in appellant's contentions.

---