Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Ltd. vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 591 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may recall an order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution where the appellant shows sufficient cause for its non-appearance, and the appeal is then restored to its original number. An application for condonation of delay in filing a restoration application may be allowed where the reasons stated for the delay are accepted as sufficient. An appeal filed beyond the limitation period may be dismissed where no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay in filing it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Decision : 01.02.2022 Misc. Application No. 1360 of 2021 And Misc. Application No. 91 of 2022 In Appeal No. 591 of 2021 Vibgyor Allied Infrastructure Ltd. Represented by its Director namely Sarit Chkraborty Godrej Water Side, DP Block, Sector V, Salt Lake, Electronic Complex, .... Applicant Kolkata, West Bengal - 700 091. (Org. Appellant) Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent Mr. Md. Bani Israil, Advocate for the Applicant / Org. Appellant. Mr. Abhishek Khare, Advocate with Mr. Sharvil Kala, Advocate i/b Khare Legal Chambers for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on September 8, 2021. A recall application has been filed alongwith application for condonation of delay. The delay in the filing of the restoration application is condoned for the reasons stated therein. 2 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, cause shown is sufficient. The application for recall of our order dated September 8, 2021 is allowed. The order dated September 8, 20221 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. The delay application, if any, in the filing of the appeal is rejected as a result of which the appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. 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 RAJALAKS Digitally signed by RAJALAKSHMI Judicial Member 01.02.2022 HMI H H NAIR Date: 2022.02.04 NAIR 10:08:02 +05'30' 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