Court sets aside orders, grants condonation of delay, directs settlement application review. Adjudication orders post-settlement deemed invalid. Writ petition granted.

The Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, set aside the impugned orders, and directed that the settlement applications be decided on merits. Adjudication orders passed after the filing of settlement applications were deemed invalid. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing.
2. Whether the impugned orders were non-reasoned.
3. Whether sufficient grounds for condonation of delay were made out.
4. Whether the delay should be construed liberally under statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing:
The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted, though required. The Counsel argued that the requirement of personal hearing should be read into the statutory provision and if not so read, the provision should be declared unconstitutional. The Court, however, did not express a conclusive opinion on the right of an applicant of a settlement application to be heard in person at the stage where the application for condonation is being decided by the Board. The issue was left open to be addressed in an appropriate case.

2. Whether the impugned orders were non-reasoned:
The petitioner argued that the impugned orders lacked reasoning, as no reasons were cited for the rejection of delay condonation applications. The Court observed that the Board had not provided proper reasons for rejecting the applications for condonation of delay. The orders merely stated that the panel of whole-time members did not find the reasons given as sufficient, which was deemed inadequate. The Court emphasized that greater consideration of the reasons cited for condonation of delay was required, noting that the result of rejecting delay condonation applications would terminate the respective settlement applications without consideration on merits.

3. Whether sufficient grounds for condonation of delay were made out:
The petitioner provided explanations for the delay in filing the settlement applications, including seeking legal advice and verifying records. The Court found that sufficient grounds were made out for condonation of delay. It was noted that the petitioner had explained the delay due to legal doubts and the need to verify old records, which took considerable time. The Court criticized the Board for summarily rejecting the applications with one-line reasons and concluded that the grounds for condonation of delay were elaborate and sufficient.

4. Whether the delay should be construed liberally under statutory provisions:
The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Section 15JB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings) Regulations, 2014. It was highlighted that the power for condonation of delay should be construed liberally. The Court noted that the regulations demonstrated an intent to consider applications for condonation of delay liberally, with provisions for levying interest on delayed applications. The Court emphasized that the regulations aimed to facilitate the settlement of disputes and that a technical approach should not undermine this legislative intent.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 23.8.2017 and 31.8.2017, allowed the applications for condonation of delay, and ordered that the settlement applications dated 21.3.2017 and 24.7.2017 be decided on merits. If any adjudication orders were passed after the filing of the settlement applications, they would be rendered invalid. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---