Facts
The Appellants filed three separate appeals under Section 15T of the SEBI Act against various SCORES complaints and seeking directions regarding specific email communications
Source reference: p. 2-5During a previous hearing on January 9, 2026, the Tribunal issued a peremptory order directing the Appellants to pay the requisite court fees
Source reference: para. 1On the date of the final hearing, no one appeared for the Appellants, although the Registry received an email requesting a two-week adjournment
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Issues
1. Whether the appeals are maintainable and can proceed to a hearing on merits when the Appellants have failed to comply with a peremptory order regarding the payment of court fees
Source reference: para. 1-2Law Applied
The Tribunal applied Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which governs appeals to the Securities Appellate Tribunal
Source reference: p. 2It further relied on the procedural principle of "peremptory orders," which mandates strict compliance with court directions (such as the payment of court fees) within a specified timeframe, failing which the proceedings are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution or non-compliance
Source reference: para. 1-2Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that despite an explicit order dated January 9, 2026, directing the payment of court fees, the Appellants had failed to comply
Source reference: para. 1The Tribunal observed that the Appellants were absent at the time of the hearing and had only sought an adjournment via email
Source reference: para. 2Given that the previous order for payment was "peremptory"—meaning final and absolute—the Tribunal reasoned that no further indulgence or extension of time was warranted
Source reference: para. 1-2Consequently, because the legal prerequisite for maintaining the appeal (payment of fees) was not met, the court declined the request for adjournment and moved to terminate the proceedings
Source reference: para. 2Holding
The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' request for a two-week adjournment and dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with the peremptory order regarding court fees
All pending miscellaneous and interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: para. 3Original Court PDF
Sapan Shrivastava & Ors. v. Trident Limited & Ors. Appeal No. 31 of 2025
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in