Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd. & Ors. vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 32 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that an application seeking clarification or correction of an order passed on a review application, where in substance it seeks a further review of that review order, is not maintainable, because a review of a review order is not permissible under the principles of Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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 : 19.10.2022 Misc. Application No. 716 of 2022 In Review Application No. 32 of 2019 In Appeal No. 481 of 2016 1. Bhartiya Global Infomedia Ltd. 1203, 12th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17th Bara Khambha Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001. Through its Company Secretary Mr. Kumar Pushkar 2. Shri Rakesh Bhatia G-222, 2nd Floor, Sector 44, Noida - 201 301. 3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mittal D-51/B, Sector - 26, Noida - 201 301. 4. Shri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal 26/161, II Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110 008 .....Applicants 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. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant. 2 Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate with Mr. Arnav Misra and Mr. Mayur Jaisingh, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
We had dismissed the appeal of the appellants by an order dated June 25, 2019 against which a Civil Appeal was filed by the applicant before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by an order of September 16, 2019. Thereafter, the applicant filed a review application before us which was dismissed by an order dated February 23, 2021. Against the review order the applicant had filed another appeal before the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed on March 4, 2022. 2. Now another application has been filed before this Tribunal seeking clarification / correction of our review order. We are of the opinion that the application is not maintainable and that such application amounts to review of our review order which is not permissible in view of the principles laid 3 down under Order 47 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is misconceived and is dismissed summarily. 3. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Certified copy of this order is also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member RAJALAKS Digitally signed HMI by RAJALAKSHMI 19.10.2022 HARISH NAIR HARISH Date: 2022.10.28 NAIR 13:30:43 +05'30' msb
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