2025 (6) TMI 540 - AT - SEBI

Non-Executive Director's 100-day delay in filing SEBI appeal dismissed due to insufficient cause for condonation

Securities Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai dismissed appellant's application for condonation of 100-day delay in filing appeal against SEBI confirmatory ... Delay of 100 days in filing the appeal against the SEBI confirmatory order - grounds pleaded by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay are that the appellant regularly travels to participate in various social purposes, the appellant had medical appointments between the date of passing of the impugned order and filing this appeal and appellant had to change his advocates. HELD THAT:- A combined reading of the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit dated November 13, 2024 shows that appellant was negligent with regard to filing of this appeal. Applying the settled principle of law to the facts of this case, we may record that appellant who was a Non-Executive Director and Chairman of a large business corporation cannot be heard to say that his travel schedules for social purposes, some medical appointments in between the date of passing of the order and the filing the appeal; and his decision to change the Advocates has caused delay in filing this appeal. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay by exercising our discretionary jurisdiction. In the result, the said Misc. application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Issues: Whether the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication.Analysis: The issue concerns exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal. Governing principles require a satisfactory, convincing and non-negligent explanation showing 'sufficient cause' for the delay; sympathy or mere convenience does not suffice. The applicant's pleaded causes included travel for social purposes, medical appointments, and change of counsel. The supporting affidavit contained internal inconsistencies (claims of being outside Mumbai while also attending a medical appointment in Mumbai on the same date) and lacked corroborative travel evidence for material dates. The applicant, a former Non-Executive Director and Chairman of a large corporation, failed to demonstrate bona fide inability to file within time; the explanation was held to be vague, inadequately substantiated and indicative of negligence. Authorities cited establish that delay not convincingly explained should not be condoned and that equitable or parity-based considerations in other contexts (such as land acquisition cases) are not directly applicable where statutory limitation and regulatory enforcement are involved.Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal is not satisfactorily explained and is not condoned; the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal is dismissed. The result is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.