Kanwal Jit Singh vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 7 of 2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review application lies only against the order sought to be reviewed, and where the earlier appeal was disposed of without examining the merits of the impugned communication, the Tribunal is not required to consider, in the review, the merits of that communication or matters bearing on them, nor can a complaint that the earlier order failed to consider a Government order or breached natural justice in the merits-based sense be entertained on review where the earlier order decided nothing on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
DATE : 04.08.2016
Review Application No. 7 of 2016 In Appeal No. 6 of 2016
Kanwal Jit Singh C 603, Mithras Park, Rahatani Road, ..... Applicant Pimple Saudagar, Pune 411 027. (Org. Appellant)
Versus
1.
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
2. The Executive Trustee UTI Mutual Fund UTI Tower, 'Gn' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.
3. The Vice President Operations Department of Operations, UTI Asset Management Company Ltd.
UTI Tower, 'Gn' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051.
4. The Managing Director, UTI Trustee Company P. Ltd.
UTI Tower, 'Gn' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ...... Respondents Mumbai 400 051. (Org. Respondents)
Mr. Kanwal Jit Singh, Applicant in person. Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocate with Mr. Rohan Agrawal, Advocate i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)
1. Being aggrieved by the communication issued by the Securities and
Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for short) on August 12, 2015, the appellant had
filed appeal No. 6 of 2016. When the said appeal was taken up for hearing on 2
April 26, 2016, on noticing certain infirmities in the impugned communication,
counsel for SEBI offered to withdraw the impugned communication and pass fresh
order after hearing the appellant. Accordingly, without going into the merits of
the case, the appeal was disposed of by permitting SEBI to withdraw the
impugned communication and to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant.
2. By the present review application the appellant seeks review of our order
dated April 26, 2016, inter-alia, on the ground that the order dated April 26, 2016
was passed without considering the Government of India order dated July 23,
2007 and that remanding the matter back to SEBI is not in consonance with the
principles of natural justice.
3. We see no merit in the above contention. What was challenged in the
appeal was the communication of SEBI dated August 12, 2015, whereby the
complaint filed by the appellant was disposed of by SEBI. Since the appeal was
disposed of by this Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, the question
of this Tribunal considering the order of Government of India or violating the
principles of natural justice does not arise at all.
4. In the result we hold that the review application is without any merit and
accordingly dismiss the review application with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 04.08.2016 Prepared & Compared by PTM
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