Vakrangee Holdings Private Limited vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 15 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning in this order is confined to two points. First, a delay in filing a review application may be condoned where the applicant shows sufficient cause, and the miscellaneous application seeking condonation is allowed on that basis. Second, an application for review of an order of the Tribunal lies only where an error of law apparent on the face of the record is shown; where no such error is found in the order sought to be reviewed, the review application is dismissed. Third, where a bench cannot sign a certified copy of its order because the hearing was conducted by video conference during the pandemic, the order may be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench, and parties are to act on a digitally signed copy transmitted by fax or email.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 05.08.2021
Misc. Application No. 850 of 2021 And Review Application No. 15 of 2021 In Appeal No. 353 of 2018
Vakrangee Holdings Private Limited Having its registered office at Vakrangee Corporate House, Plot No. 93, Road No. 16, MIDC Marol, Andheri East, ...Applicant Mumbai - 400 093. Original Appellant
In the matter between:
Vakrangee Holdings Private Limited Having its registered office at Vakrangee Corporate House, Plot No. 93, Road No. 16, MIDC Marol, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 093. ...Appellant 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. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Mr. Rahul Sarda, Mrs. Manik Joshi, Mr. Mantul Bajai and Mr. Vrushabh Vig, Advocates i/b. M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Chhangani and Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent. 2
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral)
1.
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the
applicant, the delay in the filing of the Review Application is
condoned. The Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
2. Insofar as the Review Application is concerned we do
not find any error of law in our order which requires us to
review it. The Review Application fails and is dismissed.
3. 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 Private Secretary on
behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to
act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act
on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or
email.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member Digitally signed
05.08.2021 RAJALA byRAJALAKSHMI KSHMI HDate:
NAIR
msb H NAIR 2021.08.09 10:29:36 +05'30'
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