Mr. Kamlendra Chunilal Joshi vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 08 of 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review application founded on a document that was not part of the record of the appeal cannot be entertained, because the tribunal's earlier order rested on the material evidence and documents placed before it in the appeal, and a later show cause notice outside that record cannot be considered at the review stage to upset that order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 21.02.2020
Review Application No. 08 of 2019 In Appeal No. 227 of 2016
Mr. Yogesh G. Gemawat 16 Sampran Avenue Rambaug Maninagar, Ahmedabad- 380 008 ...Applicant/ Original 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. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Agrawal, Mr. Mahaveer Rajguru and Mr. Akshit Jain, Advocates i/b Regstreet Law Advisors for the Applicant/Original Appellant.
Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
WITH Review Application No. 09 of 2019 In Appeal No. 228 of 2016
Mr. Kamlendra Chunilal Joshi A/4, Tulsi Row House, Satellite Area, Jodhpur Village Road, Ahmedabad- 380 015 ...Applicant/ Original Appellant 2
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. Rakesh Puri, Advocate for the Applicant/Original Appellant.
Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate with Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.
The appellants were found responsible for violating public
issue norms while collecting monies through Non- Convertible
Debentures (NCDs). While dismissing the appeals by judgement
dated April 16, 2019 we found the appellants to be officers in
default as per Section 5(g) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. A Review Application has now been filed contending
through an additional affidavit that the Adjudicating Officer has
issued another show cause notice dated March 21, 2018 indicating
that the company had a managing director and consequently in
view of this admitted position by the respondent the appellants 3
should be exonerated from the charge under Section 5(g) of the
Companies Act.
3. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants/
applicants, we are of the view that the order passed by us was
based on the material evidence and documents that was placed in
the appeal. The show cause notice dated March 21, 2018 was not
part of the record and which cannot be considered at this stage.
The Review Application is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
Sd/-
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 21.02.2020 Prepared & Compared By: PK
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