Mrs. Balushri Gupta vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 21 of 2024
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An order dismissing an application for condonation of delay is a discretionary order, and a subsequent bench of the Tribunal will not sit in review of such a discretionary order unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is the sine qua non for entertaining a review application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 18.06.2024
Misc. Application No. 692 of 2024 In Review Application No. 21 of 2024 In Appeal No. 930 of 2023
Mrs. Balushri Gupta 10, Mahendra Nath Ray Lane, Haora Corporation, Dist. Haora, West Bengal - 711 101. .....Applicant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b R V Legal for the Appellant.
Mr. Suraj Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Deepti Mohan, Mr. Nishin Shrikhande, Ms. Komal Shah, Mr. Harish Ballani, Ms. Hubab Sayyed and Ms. Nidhi Faganiya, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners 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)
Heard Ms. Rinku Valanju, learned Advocate for the
Applicant and Shri Suraj Chaudhary, the learned Counsel for
the Respondent.
2
2. The principle ground urged by the learned Advocate for
the Applicant is that the delay in filing the appeal was shown
as 700 days whereas the actual days of delay are only 464
days. This Tribunal, vide order dated December 7, 2023 has
dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Therefore, this
Tribunal may reconsider and review the earlier order.
3. This review application is filed belatedly after 141 days.
4. We may record that order dismissing the application for
condonation of delay is a discretionary order and it shall not
be just and proper for a subsequent bench to review a
discretionary, where there is no error apparent on the face of
the record which is the sine qua non for consideration of a
review petition. Resultantly, this review application fails and
is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 18.06.2024 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO msb SHAMRAO BHALBAR BHALBAR Date: 2024.06.21 13:04:16 +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