9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 373 - AT - Companies LawAppointment of auditor - extension of the period of interim relief granted by this Appellate Tribunal to continue with the auditing assignments of their existing clients till 31.03.2019 or till a newly constituted Bench takes an appropriate final decision in the matter, whichever is earlier, which is now sought to be extended till 31.03.2020 - Held that - Clearly an appropriate Bench was available from 23.03.2018 or at least from 06.04.2018 onwards when the parties had given their written consent, till 11.07.2018 the date on which the then Presiding Officer demitted office. Thus a window for hearing and disposing of the matter was available for more than three months. The counsel for the parties, particularly, the counsel for the Applicants / Appellants for whom early hearing the appeal was very crucial as they had approached this Appellate Tribunal within a week of the impugned order and interim reliefs were also given in a very short time frame, neither availed this window of three months plus nor even intimated a date to the Registry as stated in the Court on 06.04.2018. Responding to the administrative order dated 18.06.2018 the Applicants / Appellants in an affidavit submitted that the counsel for the parties could not fix an immediate future date of hearing because of the vacation of the Hon ble Bombay High Court during 07.05.2018 to 02.06.2018 and the vacation of the Hon ble Supreme Court between 20.05.2018 to 01.07.2018. Therefore, on 19.06.2018 when the matter was taken up 06.08.2018 was sought as the convenient date under the expectation that a new Presiding Officer would be in position soon after the earlier Presiding Officer demitted office. They also pleaded that there were only 29 working days available during 06.04.2018 19.06.2018, the vacation period. Thus no merit in the above submissions of the Applicants / Appellants. Even by their own submissions there were 29 working days during the vacation of the Supreme Court / High Court. This Appellate Tribunal has had no vacation at all. Even assuming that the Applicants / Appellants were really in trouble finding a convenient date not coming back to the Court was a serious misbehavior since a date had to be given as per the decision on 06.04.2018 even to complete SAT s own records including the cause list. In any case no fresh ground has been brought in this Miscellaneous Application. The fact that some of the clients follow the calendar year and others the financial year and the timelines relating to appointment of auditors etc are well known to the Applicants / Appellants. It was on the same grounds that this Appellate Tribunal granted interim relief by order dated 19.01.2018 and 15.02.2018 (supra). Given the fact that the Applicants / Appellants failed to take advantage of the availability of an appropriate Bench of this Appellate Tribunal for more than three months in arguing their appeals, the Miscellaneous Application citing grave urgency has no merit; particularly when the grounds raised in this Miscellaneous Application had already been considered in our January / February orders (supra).
Issues:
Extension of interim relief granted by the Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The Applicants sought an extension of the interim relief granted by the Appellate Tribunal till 31.03.2020. They argued that due to the differing accounting years of their clients, the decision regarding the appointment of auditors was time-sensitive and required careful consideration. The Applicants emphasized the financial burden imposed by not being able to take on new clients and highlighted the absence of vicarious liability in the impugned order. They relied on legal precedents to support their case, asserting that all partners cannot be held liable for the actions of some partners. The Applicants contended that extending the interim relief would not harm SEBI or public interest. The Respondent, SEBI, opposed the extension of the interim relief, citing legal judgments to support their argument. They argued that the Applicants could not seek relief on the same grounds and had waived their right to further interim relief by not taking advantage of presenting the appeal before an available appropriate Bench. SEBI emphasized the unique brand of PWC network and asserted that the Applicants cannot "approbate and reprobate." The chronology of events was crucial in deciding the Miscellaneous Application. The urgency of the matter was highlighted, and the order dated 15.02.2018 provided a temporary benefit to the Applicants until 31.03.2019 or until a Division Bench made a final decision. The availability of an appropriate Bench was discussed, and it was noted that the parties failed to communicate a convenient date for hearing the appeals, leading to delays. The Applicants submitted an affidavit explaining the delay in fixing a hearing date due to court vacations, but the Tribunal found no merit in their submissions. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, emphasizing that the Applicants had failed to take advantage of the available Bench for over three months and had not presented any new grounds for urgency. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, stating that it had no merit and no order on costs was issued.
|
