2015 (7) TMI 101 - AT - Companies Law

Application for review of Tribunal order - Held that - It was argued by the respondent that none of two tests, viz. error manifest on face of judgment or discovery of new facts, exist in present case and hence there is no case for review. This Tribunal has considered the arguments of both Counsel and after thoughtful consideration is of the view that none of the tests of review is present in R.A. under consideration and accordingly R.A. is not allowed and request of Ld. Counsel for Appellant for remanding the case to Respondent for fresh consideration, after affording opportunity of being heard and present documents in support before A.O. is not agreed to.

Summary

Issues:
Review Applications (RAs) filed for reviewing the Order dated 19/12/2014 by the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The RAs were filed by the Applicants/Original Appellants seeking a review of the Tribunal's Order. The case of Dave Harihar Kiritbhai vs. SEBI was considered, as it was agreed that the decision in this case would be applicable to the present cases due to similar facts.

2. The main points raised in the RAs included the investigation into the IPO of RDB and its subsequent trading, the appellant being restrained from trading in securities market, opportunities for personal hearing, and the response to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) from the Adjudication Officer (A.O.).

3. The Respondent argued that a review is only possible in case of a mistake/error in the order or if new facts have emerged, which was not the situation in the present case. Therefore, there was no ground for a review of the Tribunal's decision.

4. The Respondent's counsel referred to Section 15U(2) and legal precedents highlighting the limited scope of the power of review, emphasizing that it should be confined strictly to errors apparent on the face of the record.

5. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and concluded that none of the tests for review were met in the RAs under consideration. As a result, the RAs were dismissed, and the request for remanding the case for fresh consideration was not accepted.

6. Ultimately, all the Review Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal, maintaining the decision arrived at based on the available documents and considerations by the Adjudication Officer.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the Review Applications and the Tribunal's decision regarding the review of the Order dated 19/12/2014.