Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Bimal Kirit Mistry vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal20 September 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