BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PARESH UPADHYAY, S. ANANTHI, JJ.
T. Palpandi - Appellant
Versus
Securities Exchange Board of India, Maharastra & Another - Respondent
Rev.Aplw (MD) No. 13 of 2022 in W.P(MD) No. 9667 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Review Application - Maintainability of Review Application - The court allowed the review application and recalled the order to hear and decide the writ petition on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a review application against the order of the court dated 23.06.2021, contending that the order was based on erroneous assumption of fact and the writ petition was disposed of as premature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material on record to adjudicate the grievance and hold for or against the petitioner on merits, and the petition should not have been disposed of as premature. The court held the review application to be maintainable and allowed it, ordering the writ petition to be heard and decided on merits.
Issues: The maintainability of the review application and whether the writ petition was disposed of as premature or was otherwise required to be heard on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was sufficient material on record to adjudicate the grievance and hold for or against the petitioner on merits, and the petition should not have been disposed of as premature.
Final Decision: The court held the review application to be maintainable and allowed it, ordering the writ petition to be heard and decided on merits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 23.06.2021 made in W.P.(MD) No. 9667 of 2019.)
Paresh Upadhyay, J.
1. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for review of the order of this Court dated 23.06.2021 recorded on W.P(MD) No. 9667 of 2019.
2. Heard Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.C.Prasana Venkatesh for the respondents / SEBI.
3. At the outset it is noted that, learned advocate for the respondents / SEBI has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this review application. Without prejudice to that, it is submitted that, even on merits this is not the case where the order passed by this Court should be reviewed in any manner.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has addressed the Court at length inter-alia contending that the order dated 23.06.2021 was on erroneous assumption of fact. Further the prayer clause of the petitioner was very clear, however the petition is not considered on merits but was disposed of as premature. Attention of the Court is invited to the concluding part of the order (para : 8), which reads as under:-
“8. Therefore, we are of the view that the present Writ Petition is premature. Hence, leaving all issues open, the Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” (emphasis supplied)
5. We note that, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has also addressed the Court at length even on merits of the matter by referring to the pleadings, including the counter filed by the respondents / SEBI, however since this is not the stage where merits of the matter can be gone into, we have not recorded those submissions in detail. It is submitted by him that this review be allowed.
6. Learned advocate for the respondents / SEBI has also addressed the Court on merits, to the extent necessary, substance of which is that, the SEBI being regulatory authority is doing everything required under law, however it is done with due caution since its actions directly affect the financial market. It is submitted that, apart from maintainability, even on merits, this application be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds that, in this review application the only point for consideration is, whether the order dated 23.06.2021 needs to be reviewed in any manner and whether the petition could be disposed of as premature or was otherwise required to be heard on merits.
8. Keeping in view the above limited scope of this review application, we find that, it is not in dispute that the writ petition was after the earlier round of litigation and the stakes involved in the matter are irregularities worth thousands of crores of rupees. Further, when the petition was disposed of, the alleged irregularity pertained to the period about a decade back. We find that, there was sufficient material on record – running into hundreds of pages including the counter by the respondent to adjudicate the grievance and to hold for / or against the petitioner on merits but the petition ought not to have been disposed of as premature.
9. Though learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has also made submission that, the decision sought to be reviewed was also on erroneous assumption of fact, we have not examined that aspect, since the disposal of the writ petition was by treating it as premature, and that part of the order being re-called.
10. For the above reasons, the following order is passed.
10.1 This Review Application is held to be maintainable and is allowed.
10.2 The order dated 23.06.2021 recorded by this Court on W.P(MD)No. 9667 of 2019 is re-called and the said writ petition is ordered to be heard and decided on merits.
10.3 Registry shall do the needful to list W.P(MD)No. 9667 of 2019 for hearing.
The court emphasized that a writ petition should not be disposed of as premature when there is sufficient material on record to adjudicate the grievance and hold for or against the petitioner on meri....
The court emphasized that mixed questions of law and fact, such as res judicata, should not be decided as preliminary issues but rather simultaneously with all other related issues to ensure efficien....
The pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition, and the pendency of a stay application in a review petition cannot be a ground t....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The court affirmed that a show cause notice issued by SEBI is valid despite claims of delay and non-application of mind, emphasizing the necessity of fair opportunity for the petitioners to respond.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.