2024 (3) TMI 988 - HC - SEBI

Rejection of Petitioner s Settlement Applications - delay on the part of the Petitioner in making compliances of submission of documents and as per the Settlement Regulations, 2018 and more particularly Regulation 6(1)(b) - Petitioner made a representation to the Respondent requesting the Respondent to consider such documents by condoning the delay, which according to the Petitioner was not attributable to the Petitioner and for reasons which where not in Petitioner s control - HELD THAT - Certainly there was delay on the part of the Petitioner in not complying with the time lines on submission of the documents, which according to the Petitioner were relevant in regard to the Settlement Applications and as demanded by the Respondent in the course of the proceedings. We also find that the Respondent was required to follow the provisions of the Regulations in question. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the reasons which are set out by the Petitioner, in our opinion in not submitting these documents within the prescribed time, the Petitioner would certainly deserve an opportunity of his Settlement Applications being considered by the Respondent and it ought not to become inconsequential on account of a delay of 15 days in submission of the documents. This would certainly cause prejudice to the Petitioner. We are thus inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent and restore the proceedings of the Settlement Applications with the Respondent to be decided in accordance with law. Petitioner submits that the documents are already part of the record of the Settlement Applications, hence, there would not be any impediment for the Respondent to decide the Settlement Applications as filed by the Petitioner expeditiously. Let the decision on the Settlement Applications be taken as expeditiously as possible within period of eight weeks from the date of copy of the order is made available to the parties. All contentions of the parties on the adjudication of the Settlement Applications are expressly kept open.

Summary

Issues involved: Delay in compliance with settlement regulations, rejection of settlement applications, representation for condonation of delay, restoration of settlement applications, writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment addressed the issue of delay in compliance with settlement regulations, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's settlement applications. The petitioner made a representation for condonation of the delay, which was rejected. The court considered the peculiar facts of the case and the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay. It was noted that the delay of 15 days should not render the settlement applications inconsequential, as it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to reconsider the settlement applications in accordance with the law.

The court emphasized that the documents relevant to the settlement applications were already part of the record, and there should be no impediment for the respondent to decide on the applications expeditiously. A decision on the settlement applications was ordered to be made within eight weeks from the date the order copy was provided to the parties. Additionally, all contentions of the parties on the adjudication of the settlement applications were expressly kept open.

It was clarified that the court's order should not be treated as a precedent, as it was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the reasons presented by the petitioner for the delay in submitting the documents. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.