Udaksh Kumar Verma vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 4 of 2017
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review of a tribunal order is not warranted merely because the applicant seeks to have adverse observations against an official expunged and costs recalled where the applicant's own conduct in defending the official's error, despite the error having been pointed out, was the basis of those observations and costs; the tribunal declines to recall a costs order and observations which were founded on the applicant's persistence in defending an identified error, and in such circumstances the earlier order's adverse remarks and costs do not deserve to be deleted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DATE : 28.09.2017
Review Application No. 4 of 2017 In Appeal No. 134 of 2017
Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, ..... Applicant Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. (Org. Respondent)
Versus
Udaksh Kumar Verma House No. 109, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 08, Jiratola Rajnandgaon, ... Respondent Chhattisgarh - 491 888. (Org. Appellant)
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tapasvini Shah, Ms. Sonam Shethia, Advocoates i/b Juris Corp. for the Applicant. Ms. Purnima Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)
1.
Not on board. Taken up for hearing by consent of both parties.
2. By this Review Application, SEBI seeks review of our order passed
in Appeal No. 134 of 2017 on August 29, 2017 so as to expunge the
adverse observations made against the concerned Recovery Officer ('RO'
for short) and also to recall the costs imposed.
3. Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in case of Sourindra Nath
Mukherjee vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 335 of 2016 dated August 18, 2017),
counsel for SEBI submitted that as in the case of Sourindra Nath
Mukherjee, this Tribunal may simply set aside the order of the RO and 2
expunge the adverse observations made against the RO and also recall the
order imposing costs of ` 25,000/-.
4. In the case of Sourindra Nath Mukherjee, when the error committed
by the RO was pointed out, counsel for SEBI readily agreed to rectify the
error. However, in the present case inspite of pointing out the error
committed by the RO, on August 23, 2017, August 24, 2017 and August
29, 2017, not only the counsel for SEBI was instructed to defend the
decision of RO but also reply was filed by SEBI justifying the action of
RO. In these circumstances, the observations made against the RO in the
order dated August 29, 2017 and the costs imposed do not deserve to be
deleted.
5. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member 28.09.2017 Prepared & Compared by PTM
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