Capital Mirror vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.381 of 2020
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may restore an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, notwithstanding that the grounds offered for non-prosecution are not bona fide, where it considers this warranted in the larger interest, subject to the imposition of costs on the appellant.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date:16.3.2021
Misc. Application No.392 of 2020 And Misc. Application No.393 of 2020 And Misc. Application No.394 of 2020 And Misc. Application No.155 of 2021 In Appeal No.381 of 2020
Capital Mirror ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India ...Respondent
Mr. Vedchetan Patil, Advocate with Ms. Sunayana Kashid, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent.
Order:
1.
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution
on 1st December, 2020 for want of instructions to the 2
then counsel for the appellant. Now a restoration
application has been filed and the counsel contends
that there was a communication gap between the
appellant and their previous counsel which led to the
dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
Considering the aforesaid, though the grounds
mentioned does not appear to be bonafide, however, in
the larger interest we allow the application on payment
of cost of Rs.20,000 per appellant to be paid by means
of a demand draft before the Registrar of the Tribunal
within two weeks from today. The application is
allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number.
List for admission of 15th April, 2021.
2. Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hours
before the date fixed to find out as to whether the
hearing would take place through video conferencing
or through physical hearing.
3. The present matter was heard through video
conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it 3
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
RAJALA Digitally by signed
16.3.2021 KSHMI NAIR RAJALAKSHMI H
Date: 2021.03.18 RHN H NAIR 10:36:13 +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