2022 (3) TMI 1638 - SCH - SEBI

Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution due to the appellant s counsel repeatedly seeking adjournments - As decided by SAT 2021 (11) TMI 1219 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI as appellant does not want to argue the matter today. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the registry. The order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench HELD THAT - As Tribunal has noted that the appeal was fixed during the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore it was not even possible for the members of the Tribunal to sign the order. All that the order records is that on that day the Advocate for the appellants appeared and sought adjournment. Tribunal goes to the extent of saying that the counsel for the appellants was not interested in arguing the case. That was no ground to dismiss an appeal and especially during the period affected by COVID-19 pandemic. The second impugned order is by which an application for restoration of the appeal made by the appellants was dismissed. There was no reason to dismiss the said application. The Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical approach. Accordingly we set aside both the impugned orders and restore Appeal to the file of the Securities Appellate Tribunal. We make it clear that the appellants shall cooperate with the Tribunal for early disposal of the appeal and shall not seek any adjournments on unwarranted grounds.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India, through an order by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, addressed a statutory appeal dismissed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) for "want of prosecution" due to the appellant's counsel seeking adjournments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The SAT had rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the appeal, noting the counsel's lack of interest in arguing the case, and issued a digitally signed order due to pandemic constraints.The Court held that dismissal on such grounds, especially amid the pandemic, was unwarranted. It criticized the SAT's "hyper-technical approach" in also dismissing the appellants' restoration application without sufficient reason. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside both impugned orders and restored Appeal No. 209/2018 to the SAT's file.The Court clarified that the appellants must cooperate for the appeal's early disposal and refrain from seeking unwarranted adjournments. The appeals were "partly allowed."