Mountain View Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 70 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condones the delay in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's suo motu orders of 23 March 2020 and 27 April 2021 extending limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic, and allows the delay application. Where the controversy in an appeal is squarely covered by an earlier decision of the same Tribunal, the Tribunal will follow that decision and will not take a different view of the point it has already decided, and an appeal raising such a covered controversy fails and is 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 : 16.02.2022 Misc. Application No. 102 of 2022 (Delay Application) And Appeal No. 70 of 2022 Mountain View Developers Pvt. Ltd. B-3, Shop 7, Lok Nisarg, Near Vaishali Nagar, B. R. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400 080. ..... Appellant Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent Mr. Vikas Bengani, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Vyom Shah, Advocate with Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Zulfiqar Jariwala, Mr. Yash Garach, Mr. Yash Dhruva, Mr. Shabbir Jariwala, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. There is a delay in the filing of the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated March 23, 2020 and April 27, 2021 in Suo 2 Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. (S) 3 of 2020, the delay is condoned. The Misc. application is allowed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 402 of 2021 Rajesh Tawri vs. SEBI decided on June 23, 2021. We do not find any reason to take a different view of which we had already taken in the said appeal. 3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 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 RAJALA Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI Judicial Member 16.02.2022 KSHMI H NAIR Date: 2022.02.21 H NAIR 10:31:33 +05'30' 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