Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Orissa Industries Limited vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal10 June 2020Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal recalled an order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution where the appellant's authorised representative had sent an email to the Registrar seeking an adjournment, which was not placed before the Tribunal before dismissal; on that basis it held that sufficient cause had been shown and recalled the dismissal, allowing the restoration application and listing the appeal for admission.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAIDate of Decision: 10.6.2020Misc. Application No.142 of 2020InMisc. Application No.657 of 2019AndAppeal No.594 of 2019Orissa Industries LimitedLathikata, Sundargarh, ... Applicant/Odisha-770037. (Org. Appellant)VersusSecurities & Exchange Board of IndiaCamac Street, Elgin, Kolkata,West Bengal-700017. ... RespondentMr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate for the Applicant/(Org.Appellant).Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate i/b. Vidhii Partners for theRespondent.CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding OfficerDr. C.K.G. Nair, MemberJustice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member2Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)1.We have heard Shri Lalit Kumar Maharana, learnedCounsel for the Appellant and Ms. Nidhi Singh, learnedCounsel for the Respondent. The appeal was dismissed for

want of prosecution on 10th February, 2020. It transpires that

a restoration application was sent by post on 16th March,

2020. The Appellant has prayed for restoration of the appeal

contending that the Authorized Representative of the

Company had to go to Delhi to attend another meeting on

account of which he could not appear on the date fixed. In

this regard, it was also contended that the Authorized

Representative had sent an email dated 10th February, 2020 to

the Registrar of the Tribunal requesting for an adjournment.

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

Respondent has opposed the restoration application

contending that due diligence was not observed by the

Appellant and, in any case, the application for restoration had

been filed beyond 30 days which cannot be entertained unless

and until an application for condonation of delay is filed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we

find that admittedly an email was sent by the Authorized 3

Representative of the Appellant to the Registrar of this

Tribunal seeking an adjournment. The said email was not

placed before the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal was

dismissed for want of prosecution.

4. In our opinion, cause shown is sufficient and for the

said reasons the order dated 10th February, 2020 dismissing

the appeal for want of prosecution is recalled. Misc.

Application no.142 of 2020 is allowed.

5. Let the appeal be listed for admission through video

conferencing or through physical appearance depending on

the prevailing situation at 11.30 a.m. on 17th June, 2020.

Parties will take necessary instructions from the Registrar of

this Tribunal 48 hours before the date fixed.

6. 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 Presiding Officer on

behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to

act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act 4

on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or

email.

Justice Tarun Agarwala

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL Presiding Officer DN: c=IN, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=a0e08b2d80e9d23c2c2a a3e16780d684adad6bc9e810de2

AGAR d7b0c28efd35557c9, postalCode=211001, street=B/ A,NYAYA MARG ALLAHABAD, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1c Dr. C. K. G. Nair d07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404aa

WAL 38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, Member o=Personal, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.06.10 23:35:40 +05'30'

Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member

10.6.2020 RHN

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