2017 (10) TMI 1490 - AT - SEBI

Fresh representation to SEBI - Suggestion was made by counsel for SEBI and not by the counsel for the appellant - HELD THAT - Since counsel for appellant has accepted the suggestion, we see no reason to modify our order. Second grievance of the applicant is that the applicant must be permitted to make representation on all issues relating to the violation of securities laws by the respondent No. 2 and not restricted to the violation set out in the appeal - In our opinion, permitting the appellant to make representation on issues which are not subject matter of appeal would amount to enlarging the scope of the representation beyond the grievances set out in the memo of appeal. Therefore, we see no reason to modify our order on this issue as well.

Summary

Issues: Modification of order regarding representation to SEBI and permission to make representation on all issues relating to violation of securities laws.

Modification of Order:
The judgment addresses a misc. application seeking modification of a previous order passed in an appeal. The applicant raised grievances regarding the recording of counsel's agreement and the scope of representation. The first grievance pertained to the recording in the order that the appellant's counsel agreed to make a fresh representation to SEBI, whereas the suggestion was made by SEBI's counsel. The tribunal noted that since the appellant's counsel accepted the suggestion, there was no reason to modify the order. The second grievance focused on the applicant's request to make representations on all issues related to violations of securities laws by the respondent, not just those in the appeal. The tribunal held that allowing representation on non-appeal issues would expand the scope beyond the appeal's grievances, leading to the dismissal of the application without costs.

Permission for Representation on Violations of Securities Laws:
The judgment delves into the aspect of permitting the appellant to make representations on all issues concerning the violation of securities laws by the respondent. The tribunal emphasized that allowing representation on matters not covered in the appeal would extend the scope of the representation beyond the appeal's outlined grievances. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the misc. application, resulting in its dismissal without any order as to costs.