Bimal Kirit Mistry vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 599 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The procedural order contains a single line of reasoning: where an appeal is taken up for admission, a prima facie view that the impugned order was passed by the wrong authority, namely the defaulter section rather than the Member and Core Settlement Guarantee Fund Committee as the Circular dated 18.11.2020 requires for review applications, is sufficient to direct a reply and list the matter for admission.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date: 20.09.2021
Misc. Application No. 1125 of 2021 And Appeal No. 599 of 2021
Bimal Kirit Mistry ...Appellant
Versus
National Stock Exchange of India Limited ...Respondent
Mr. Kunal Katariya, Advocate with Mr. Sahebrao Wamanrao Buktare, and Mr. Ravi Vijay Ramaiya, Chartered Accountant i/b Shah & Ramaiya, Chartered Accountants for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, and Mr. Aditya Vyas, Advocates i/b. MKA & Co., Advocates for the Respondent.
ORDER:
1. An urgency application has been filed by the appellant
seeking urgent hearing. We do not find any urgency to take the
appeal out of turn. The urgency application is rejected. The
advocates are warned not to file such an urgency application if
there is no urgency in the matter.
2. Since we have taken up the appeal for admission, we find
prima facie that the impugned order has been passed by the
defaulter section whereas as per the Circular dated 18.11.2020
the review application is required to be considered by the 2
Member and Core Settlement Guarantee Fund Committee
(MCSGFC). Let a reply be filed by the respondent within two
weeks. List for admission on October 08, 2021.
3. Parties are directed to take instructions from the Registrar
48 hours before the date fixed in order to find out as to whether
the matter would be taken up for hearing through video
conference or through physical hearing.
4. The present matter was heard through video conference
due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign
a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be
issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, 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. Parties will act on production of a
digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 20.09.2021 RAJALA Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI
PK KSHMI HDate:
NAIR 2021.09.21 H NAIR 11:24:33 +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