SAT Rejects Delay Condonation in SEBI Order Against ZEE Chairman

Case Details: Subhash Chandra v. Securities and Exchange Board of India - 174 taxmann.com 1041 (SAT-Mumbai)[02-05-2025]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer, Ms Meera Swarup & Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
• Pradeep Sancheti, Sr. Adv. & Robin Shah, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Darius Khambatta, Sr. Adv., Vidhi Shah Ajmera, Mihir Mody, Yash Sutaria & Tushar Bansode, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant, a Non-Executive Director and Chairman of ZEE, issued a ‘Letter of Comfort’ to a bank for credit facilities amounting to Rs. 200 Crores. SEBI investigated the matter and found that the letter was issued without proper authority from ZEE, amounting to a violation of Regulation 4(1) and 4(2)(f) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 and Regulation 4 of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

Consequently, SEBI restrained the appellant from holding the position of a director in ZEE. The Appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 100 days and requested condonation of delay.

SAT Held

Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) rightly pointed out that in his sworn affidavit, the appellant stated that he was travelling outside Mumbai between August 12 and 23, 2023. In the same affidavit, the appellant mentioned that he had visited Dr. Anant Joshi on August 14, 2023, and it is impossible for a person to be present in Delhi and Mumbai simultaneously. The Appellant gave incorrect facts in a sworn affidavit. The appellant further claimed that his travel for social purposes and change of legal counsel caused the delay.

The SAT specified that, as the Chairman of a large business group, these were not valid reasons for delay. The Appellant had been negligent in pursuing the matter.

Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Personal reasons such as travel schedules or changes in legal representation, especially when not substantiated with evidence, are insufficient for condonation of delay.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2020) 19 SCC 599, (para 22), distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2020) 19 SCC 599 (para 6)
• Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 (para 8)
• Presha Metallurgical Ltd. v. SEBI 2021 SCC Online SAT 738 (para 8)
• Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad (2001) 5 SCC 568 (para 8)
• Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 (para 16)
• Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 (para 19)
• Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors AIR 1935 PC 85 (para 20).