9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2015 - - X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted opportunity for personal hearing and thereafter confirmatory order was issued on 8/10/2012. * Appellant thereafter received SCN from Adjudication Officer (A.O.) under Rule 4(1) of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995. * Appellant did not appear before A.O., but informed A.O. that his replies before WTM, SEBI wherein he was restraine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for same and hence there was no violation of principle of natural justice and hence Tribunal considered the matter in appeal and decided to uphold the decision of A.O., arrived at on basis of documents available and taken into consideration by A.O. 3. Respondent represented that review is possible only if there is mistake/error on face of order of if some new facts have come up, which were not av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due diligence, was not within knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason." This view was also cited in Ishwar Dutt vs. Gyan Chand in AIR 1998 Rajasthan 302, wherein it is stated that - "The scope of the power of review as envisaged u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt from rectifying the error." 7. Ld. Counsel for Respondent argued 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. 8. 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 conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
