Ms. Rama Subramanian vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 301 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The restoration of an appeal is refused where the earlier order it challenged has been superseded by a fresh order passed by the authority pursuant to the Tribunal's own direction, since the proper remedy is to appeal against the fresh order rather than to restore the disposed appeal. Where a material order vacating a restraint direction was passed by a competent court but was not placed before the authority when it passed its later order, the aggrieved party may seek reconsideration of that order by the authority upon filing a certified copy of the omitted order, and the authority must then reconsider and pass a fresh order after affording the party an opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 13.02.2019
Misc. Application No. 311 of 2018 In Appeal No. 301 of 2018
Ms. Rama Subramanian R/at No. B-501, Vasundhara CHS Ltd., Bengalee Compound, Krishna Vatika Marg, Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai- 400 063 ...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. Rama Subramanian, Applicant in Person.
Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate i/b ELP for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.
This is an application for restoration of Appeal No. 301 of 2018
which was decided by an order dated 24.08.2018 passed by this Tribunal.
After hearing the applicant in person we are of the opinion that the appeal
cannot be restored. The application is misconceived in as much as
pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal dated 24.08.2018, Securities 2
and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") has passed a fresh order dated
06.09.2018. It would be open to the applicant to file an appeal
questioning the veracity and legality of the order dated 06.09.2018.
2. We also find that the applicant has filed an order dated 30.11.2015
passed by the Special Judge MPID & Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby the
restraint order was vacated. Apparently, this fact was not brought to the
knowledge of SEBI at the time when SEBI passed the order dated
06.09.2018.
3. In the light of the aforesaid, it would be open to the applicant to
file a fresh application before SEBI along with the certified copy of this
order bringing to the knowledge of SEBI the order dated 30.11.2015
passed by the Special Judge MPID & Addl. Sessions Judge. Upon
receipt of such application, SEBI would reconsider its order dated
06.09.2018 and pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing
to the applicant within two weeks from the date the certified copy of this
order is presented along with the application.
4. Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member 13.02.2019 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