Ankit Modi vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 740 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning in this order rests on two points, each stated in the text: First, an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay is a discretionary order, and a recall application directed at such an order must show an error apparent on the face of the record for the Tribunal to interfere; absent such an error, the recall application is misconceived. Second, once the earlier order on condonation of delay has attained finality and the appeal was dismissed on that basis, the dismissal of the recall application leaves the appeal dismissed, and pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 06.05.2024
Misc. Application No. 434 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 561 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 562 of 2024 And Misc. Application No. 563 of 2024 And Appeal No. 740 of 2023 Ankit Modi 159, Rabindra Sarani 10th Floor, Kolkata, ..... Applicant West Bengal - 700 007. (Org. Appellant)
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent
Ms. Megha Agarwal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan, Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
Per : Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2
1.
This application is filed with a prayer, inter-alia, to recall
order dated September 8, 2023 in Misc. Application Nos. 1058 of
2023 and 1059 of 2023 and Appeal No. 740 of 2023 whereby this
Tribunal has dismissed the application for condonation of delay and
consequently, dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the
appellant argued that for reasons stated in the application, the order
needs to be recalled.
2. We may record that the previous bench which heard this
matter, for the reasons stated in the order has dismissed the
application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal has
been dismissed. The said order has attained its finality. The order
passed on the application for condonation of delay is a discretionary
order and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The
instant application for recalling the said order is misconceived and it
is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application/s if any stand disposed of.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 06.05.2024 PRAMILA TANAJI Digitally signed by PRAMILA TANAJI MISAL Date: 2024.05.07 MISAL PTM 16:35:39 +05'30'
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free