BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 11.11.2019 Misc. Application No.380 of 2019 And Appeal No.351 of 2019 Bhagwati Gas Ltd. Banawas, Khetrinagar, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan ….. Appellant Versus BSE Limited Floor 25, P.J. Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai-400001. …… Respondent Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate with Mr. Arka Saha, Advocate i/b. Khaitan & 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. The present appeal has been filed against the order

dated 11th May, 2018 by which the appellant Company has been delisted under Regulation 22(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009. There is a delay of 316 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, an application for condoning the delay has been filed. In the said application, it has been stated that they came to know about the impugned order in the second week of June, 2018 and accordingly sought documents from Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’) on 20th June, 2018 which were received by the appellant on 4th July, 2018. It was also stated that the certified copy of the order was never served to the appellant and it was only given on 30th April, 2019 and thereafter the appeal was filed. It was also alleged that they are residing in Delhi and it took some time to find a specialized Advocate in Mumbai dealing in the securities market. In the additional affidavit filed by the appellant it was stated that the officer in charge went on leave in August and only came back in the end of September and, since then, the appellant was making correspondence with the stock exchanges and accordingly contended that the delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained and that the delay should be condoned.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Against an order of delisting, an appeal is required to be filed within 15 days under Section 21A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or within 45 days under Section 23L. We find from the record that the trading of the shares of the Company was suspended in August, 2016 and, therefore, it is apparently clear that that the appellant was not interested in the delisting order as it did not prefer to file an appeal within 15 days under Section 21A or within 45 days under Section 23L. For the appellants it was not a case of urgency.

3. We also find that the contention that the impugned

order was never served upon the appellant is misconceived. According to the appellant they came to know of the order on 2nd June, 2018 and received the requisite documents which they applied on 4th July, 2018. The appeal could have been filed immediately thereafter but they did not do so and only filed after an inordinate delay of 316 days.

4. We also find that in the additional affidavit no proof

has been filed to show that the officer who was in charge had gone on leave or that the Company was in correspondence with the stock exchange throughout. In the absence of any documentary proof, the ground urged in the additional affidavit is devoid of any merit and is an afterthought.

5. In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors.

(2010) Vol.8 SCC 685 the Supreme Court held that the expression `sufficient cause' implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. In Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Others vs Gobardhan Sao And Others (2002) 3 SCC 195 Supreme Court held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party.

6. On a perusal of the affidavit we do not find any

sufficient cause or plausible cause show by the appellant. The ground given by the appellant is patently vague and does not imply the presence of any legal and/or adequate reasons. No doubt the Tribunal is possessed with exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay after sufficient cause and/or adequate reason is given. In the instant case, we find that no bonafide reasons had been given for condoning the inordinate delay. We are of the opinion that it is the requirement of law that an application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of right on payment of cost especially in the absence of adequate and/or legal reason.

7. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the Misc. Application

for condonation of delay is rejected as a result the appeal does not survive and is also dismissed. Sd/- Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Sd/- Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member Sd/- Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 11.11.2019 Prepared and compared by RHN