Panchanan Pradhan vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No.6 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The review application is allowed on the ground that the appellant's non-appearance on the earlier listed dates arose from the appellant's lack of knowledge of those dates, coupled with a demonstrated lapse in communication on the part of the Registry, and such a showing justifies restoring an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date : 26.7.2018
Misc. Application No.287 of 2017 And Review Application No.6 of 2017 In Appeal No.17 of 2017
Panchanan Pradhan ..... Appellant
Versus
Securities & Exchange Board of India & Ors. ...... Respondents
Mr. Prakash Chandra Sethi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Sameer Bindra, Advocate i/b. Juris Corp for the Respondent.
ORDER :
Misc. Application no.287 of 2017 in Review Application No.6 of 2017
1. There is a delay of 2 days in filing the Review Application No.6 of
2017. For the reasons stated in the Misc. Application the delay is
condoned.
2. The Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly with no order as
to costs.
Review Application No.6 of 2017 in Appeal No.17 of 2017
1. Review application has been filed by the appellant for restoration of
the appeal which was dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal on 20.6.2017
for want of prosecution. As per records the appellant was not represented
on three occasions in the recent past and therefore the appeal was dismissed
for want of prosecution.
2
2. The argument of the Counsel for the appellant is that he was not
aware of the dates fixed for hearing the matter. Further, on verification of
records it is noted that there was some lapse in communication from the
side of the Registry.
3. Accordingly I find merit in the submission of the appellant. The
review application is allowed and appeal is restored.
4. By consent, stand over to September 26, 2018.
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G.Nair Member
26.7.2018 Prepared and compared by 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