BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 21.08.2019
Misc. Application No. 93 of 2017
And
Appeal No. 85 of 2017
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Vision Cinemas Ltd.
VASANTH Color Laboratories Ltd.
S. I. Media LLP
Bindiganavale Ranga Vasanth Kumar
Vishnu Vasanth
Vinitha Vasanth
Anitha Vasanth
302, Brigade Lavelle II, Lavelle Road,
Bangalore – 560001.

….. Appellants
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.

Mr.

Ankit
Lohia,
Advocate
… Respondent
for
the
Appellants.

Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Ms. Misbah
Dada, Advocates i/b ELP for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
2
1.

The Whole Time Member passed an order dated May 13, 2015
directing the appellants to make a public announcement within 45
days for the purpose of acquiring the shares of the target company in
accordance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 1997 and also pay interest at the rate of 10% on the
consideration to the shareholders. Against this order, an Appeal No.
352 of 2015 was filed which was dismissed as withdrawn by this
Tribunal by an order dated November 17, 2016 giving liberty to file a
fresh incorporating all the facts within 10 days from the date of the
order.

2.

The appeal was not filed within the stipulated period of 10
days and was presented on March 6, 2017. Since there was a delay
of 99 days, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we find
that no sufficient cause nor any plausible explanation has been given
for the delay in filing of the appeal beyond the stipulated period of 10
days. The only ground urged is that one of the appellants fell ill from
November 10, 2016 to December 14, 2016 and another appellant fell
ill from January 19, 2017 to February 2, 2017.

3
4.

In our view, illness of the two of the appellants for a short
period does not justify the long delay in filing the appeal.

We
somehow get this uncanny feeling that the entire purpose of delaying
the filing of the appeal was to prolong the implementation of the
impugned order dated May 13, 2015 which required the appellants to
make an open offer to the shareholders of the company within 45
days. Till date the said impugned order has not been implemented.
We further find that more than two and half years have elapsed since
the filing of the appeal and the appellant only took adjournment
whenever the appeal was listed for admission. These actions only
indicate the method adopted by the appellant in prolonging the
matter. We consequently, do not find any sufficient cause being
shown for condoning the delay. The Misc. Application is dismissed
as a result, the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
21.08.2019
Prepared & Compared by
PTM