Gitesh Tikmani Huf vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 14 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order refusing condonation of delay is a discretionary order, and a recall application cannot be entertained against it merely because the appellant disagrees with the earlier reasoning; a recall or review lies only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and absent such an error the application is misconceived and is dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 17.05.2024
Misc. Application No. 451 of 2024 In Review Application No. 14 of 2024 And Appeal No. 732 of 2023
Gitesh Tikmani HUF 397, BL G Diamond Harbour Road, New Alipore, Triangular Park, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700 053. ..... 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 September 8, 2023 in Misc. Application 2
Nos. 973 of 2023 and 974 of 2023 and Appeal No. 732 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 SHAMRAO msb BHALBAR BHALBAR Date: 2024.05.22 16:25:15 +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