SAT

Failure to Pay Court Fees Despite Peremptory Order Warrants Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Prosecution

Sapan Shrivastava & Ors. v. Trident Limited & Ors. Appeal No. 31 of 2025

SAT1 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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. 2-5

During 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. 1

On 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. 2
02

Issues

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. 1-2
03

Law 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. 2

It 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. 1-2
04

Reasoning

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. 1

The Tribunal observed that the Appellants were absent at the time of the hearing and had only sought an adjournment via email

Source reference: para. 2

Given 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. 1-2

Consequently, 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. 2
05

Holding

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. 3
SAT

Original Court PDF

Sapan Shrivastava & Ors. v. Trident Limited & Ors. Appeal No. 31 of 2025

SAT

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment