Failure to diligently fulfill regulatory compliances despite multiple opportunities warrants dismissal of appeal.

The Appellant filed this appeal under Section 23L of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, to quash an order dated November 21, 2023, issued by the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE)

The dispute centers on the Appellant's failure to pay Annual Listing Fees and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) fines, estimated to be between ₹30 Lakhs and ₹40 Lakhs

During previous proceedings, the Appellant informed the Tribunal that they would not press the appeal on merits but sought time to rectify compliance shortfalls

The matter had been pending since April 15, 2025, during which the Appellant was granted ten adjournments based on assurances that compliance would be met

On the final hearing date, the Appellant requested further time, claiming they had not been provided with bank account details to facilitate payment

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted further time to comply with regulatory requirements after multiple adjournments

2. Whether the Appellant’s contention regarding the lack of bank account details justified the continued non-payment of dues

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 23L of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which provides for appeals against orders of recognized stock exchanges

The court applied the principle of regulatory diligence, holding that entities must strictly adhere to the timelines and payment obligations for Annual Listing Fees and SOP fines as prescribed by the Stock Exchange’s regulatory framework

The Tribunal found the Appellant’s request for additional time to be without merit.

It noted that the Appellant had failed to fulfill its financial obligations for nearly two and a half years since the original order was passed in November 2023

The Tribunal specifically debunked the Appellant’s claim that bank details were unavailable, pointing out that the specific bank account number, department, and IFSC code were clearly documented within the impugned order itself

The Tribunal highlighted that despite the appeal being pending for a full year and receiving ten adjournments, no payment had been made

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had not been diligent in fulfilling regulatory compliances and was merely seeking to prolong the matter

It held that the bank details were readily available to the Appellant since 2023 and the failure to pay during the pendency of the appeal was inexcusable

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded