Manilal P. Gala vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 05 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principle: a review application is maintainable only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and where the applicant's contention that the impugned order was passed without a hearing is contradicted by the record showing that the appeal was heard on merits, with separate consideration of each appeal in a batch, no such error is established and the review is liable to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision: 13.05.2024
Misc. Application No. 610 of 2024 And Review Application No. 05 of 2024 In Appeal No. 369 of 2023
Manilal P. Gala 201, Crystal Classic, S.V. Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400 056 ...Applicant (Org. Appellant) Versus
National Stock Exchange of India Limited Exchange Plaza, C-1, Block G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 ...Respondent
Mr. Kamal Agrawal, CA for the Applicant.
Mr. Divakar Dadich, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Agrawal, Ms. Nikita Deora and Ms. Charu Chaudhry, Advocates i/b Nyaayam Associates for the Respondent.
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 Misc. Application is filed in Review Application No.
05, 2024 challenging the order dated May 04, 2024 passed by 2 the National Stock Exchange of India Limited ("NSEIL" for
short) (Exhibit A to the misc. application).
2. We have heard the Review Application both on delay and
merits.
3. Shri Kamal Agrawal, Chartered Accountant for the
applicant submitted that the order impugned in the Review
Application dated May 15, 2023 was passed without hearing the
appellant.
4. Shri Jaikishan Lakhwani, learned counsel for the
respondent NSEIL present in Court made a vehement
submission that though Appeal No. 243 of 2023 was heard
along with other appeals in a batch of appeals, the lead matter
was heard at length and facts of each case were separately
considered. In substance he submitted that all appeals were
considered by this Tribunal on merits and separate orders were
passed. Shri Kamal Agrawal for appellant did not seriously
dispute the said submission. In that view of the matter, we find
no error apparent on the face of the record to consider the
review application.
5. At this stage Shri Kamal Agrawal seeks liberty to
challenge another order passed by the NSEIL dated May 04, 3 2024 in a separate appeal. Needless to mention that the
appellant is always at liberty to challenge any order if so
advised in accordance with law.
6. In the result, the Review application is dismissed. All
interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar PRERNA Digitally signed by Technical Member 13.05.2024 MANISH PRERNA MANISH KHARE Date: 2024.05.16 PK KHARE 16:11:09 +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