BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 27.03.2019 Misc. Application No. 389 of 2018 And Appeal No. 438 of 2018 Ankit Yarns Limited 9 Industry House, Plot No. 4, Narwah Estate, Off Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai400 072 …Appellant Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai400 051 …Respondent Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Advocate i/b Mr. Bankim Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody and Mr. Sushant Yadav, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is a

delay of 449 days in filing the appeal. The ground urged is that in para 23 of the impugned order it was categorically stated that the appellant was not guilty of violation of 15A(a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”) and that separate proceedings against the appellant under Section 15HB of SEBI Act would be initiated. On this basis separate proceedings were initiated by SEBI which culminated into an order dated March 26, 2018 in which a separate penalty was imposed which the appellant has paid. It was further contended that the appellant has now realised that the impugned order also carried a penalty of ` 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) under Section 15C of the SEBI Act. It was thus contended that since the penalty imposed in the two matters are same the appellant was under a bonafide belief that the said penalty was not to be paid.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of

the opinion that this cannot be a reasonable ground for condoning the inordinate delay. The two orders are totally different and distinct. Separate Adjudication proceedings have been initiated which culminated in two different orders. We therefore do not find any cogent or valid ground in condoning the delay. The application is rejected as a result the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Sd/- Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member Sd/- Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 27.03.2019 Prepared & Compared By: PK