Pan Asia Advisors Limited (Now Known As ... vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 11 of 2016
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal is bound by the Supreme Court's decision in the same parties' case holding that SEBI has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the applicants, and it cannot reopen that issue on a review application seeking to revisit the Tribunal's own earlier order on that point. A review application that seeks to reagitate an issue already concluded by a higher court's binding decision is not maintainable, and the proper remedy against the Tribunal's order lies by way of appeal to the Supreme Court rather than by review before the Tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 15.02.2017
Review Application No. 11 of 2016 In Appeal No. 126 of 2013
1.
Pan Asia Advisors Limited (now known as Global Finance and Capital Limited) International Corporate Finance Minister House, 42 Mincing Lane, London, United Kingdom.
2. Mr. Arun Panchariya Villa No. 29, Street No. 2, The Meadows - 6, Emirates Hills Living III, Dubai, UAE. ...Applicants
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. Nirman Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Mona Vora, Advocate i/b DSK Legal for Mr. Tarun Diwan, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. Shyam Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat and Mr. Nishant Upadhyay, Advocates i/b K. Ashar & Co. for the Respondents.
CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Jog Singh, Member Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral)
1. By this Review Application the Applicants seek review of our order
passed in Appeal No.126 of 2013 on October 25, 2016. By that order, while 2
dismissing the Appeal, we had upheld the order passed by the Whole
Time Member of Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short "SEBI")
against the Appellants on 20th June, 2013.
2. Counsel for Applicants submitted that although the Apex Court in
the Appellant's own case, reported in AIR 2015 S.C. 2782, has held that
SEBI has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the Applicants, in view
of the contrary affidavit filed by SEBI in some other proceedings, it is
necessary to review the order passed by this Tribunal on October 25, 2016.
In spite of our informing the Counsel for Applicants that once the Apex
Court has held that SEBI has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the
Appellants, it would not be open for us to reconsider the issue, Counsel for
Applicants insisted on pursuing the Review Application. Thereupon,
Counsel for Applicants drew our attention to various paragraphs in our
order dated October 25, 2016 which according to him were erroneous and
hence ought to be reviewed.
3. In our opinion, the Review Application is wholly misconceived. If
at all the Applicants are aggrieved by our order, the proper remedy is to
file an appeal before the Apex Court and not to seek review of our order.
In spite of our repeatedly pointing out to the Counsel for Applicants that
such a review is not maintainable, Counsel for Applicants insisted on
arguing the matter. In these circumstances, we restrain the Counsel for
Applicants from arguing further and dismiss the Review Application with
costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Applicants to SEBI within a
period of four weeks from today.
3
4. Review Application is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Jog Singh Member
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
15.02.2017 Prepared & compared by-dg
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