Bal Kishan Agarwal vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 18 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order passed on an application for condonation of delay is a discretionary order, and the Tribunal will not recall such an order absent an error apparent on the face of the record; a bare disagreement with the earlier bench's exercise of that discretion does not constitute such an error, and an application seeking recall on that basis is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Bal Kishan Agarwal 58/75, Neel Wali Gali, Birhana Road, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 208 001. ..... Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, FCA i/b R.A. Dhoot & Co. for the Appellant.
Mr. Manish Chhangani with Mr. Sumit Yadav, Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. Atul Kumar Agrawal, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent- SEBI.
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)
This application is filed with a prayer, inter-alia, to
recall order dated October 13, 2023 in Misc. Application Nos. 2
546 of 2023 and Appeal No. 784 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. 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 17.05.2024 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO msb SHAMRAO BHALBAR BHALBAR Date: 2024.05.22 16:24:31 +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