Review Application No. 1 of 2014 in Appeal No. 27 of 2013. Case: Vibha Sharma Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Case NumberReview Application No. 1 of 2014 in Appeal No. 27 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Somasekhar Sundaresan, Abishek Venkataraman and Arti Raghavan, Advocates and For Respondents: Shiraz Rsutmojee, Senior Advocate and Pratham V. Masurekar, Advocate
JudgesJ.P. Devadhar, J. (Presiding Officer), Jog Singh and A.S. Lamba, Members
IssueSecurities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Section 15U(2)(c)
Judgement DateJuly 30, 2014
CourtSecurities and Exchange Board of India


A.S. Lamba, Member

  1. This review application no. 1 of 2014 has been filed in terms of section 15U(2)(c) of SEBI Act, 1992, for review of this Tribunal's order dated September 24, 2013 in appeal no. 27 of 2013 in Vibha Sharma and Jitendra Kumar Sharma (Original Appellants, OA) vs. SEBI (Original Respondent, OR) against order of OR dated December 19, 2012 in case no. EAD-2/110-111/2012 regarding imposition penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- for violation of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) and 4(1) of PFUTP Regulations 2003, warranting imposition of monetary penalty under 15HA of SEBI Act, 1992.

  2. Review of SAT order has been sought in following grounds:

    • OA have discovered material errors of fact, which have crept into SAT order, and are apparent on fact of order and go to root of findings of SAT order and are necessary for determination of question of law that fall for consideration in appeal.

    • Material error of fact exists in SAT order and certain relevant submissions of OA were not considered in SAT Order. These material errors, as discovered by OA may be seen at, Exhibit C, page 38 of Review Application. Only relevant facts relate to "profits by manipulating sale price of one scrip on each and every of these 14 days" and "trade by CBI manipulated price of a particular scrip". These will be dealt subsequently.

    • SAT order does not deal with certain critical submissions of fact advanced by OA and if dealt with and correctly recorded, would have significant bearing on the ratio set out in SAT order, etc., but these critical submissions have not been spelt out and if not understood by this Tribunal how these have to be discovered and taken into account even now.

    • It appears important evidence is available with Central Bank of India and if produced, could call into question very foundational findings of impugned order of SAT.

  3. Further, it is stated it would not be possible to pursue an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court "on question of law", when there are erroneous findings of fact or where a germane question of fact has not been answered in SAT order. With regard to this, it may be stated that whatever relevant submissions not considered in SAT order but are evident, will be considered; but it has been stated that certain critical submissions of fact advanced by applicant, but these critical submissions have not been stated even now and hence it may not be possible to consider these.

  4. Since, it has already been stated that this Tribunal will deal with submissions, not stated to be earlier considered but can be found from pleadings of Review Application (RA), we may not deal with Daman Singh vs. State of Punjab, State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. H.B. Malhotra, Mohd. Akram vs. Chief Election Officers & Ors., since rulings in these cases deal with relevant or germane facts not being considered while deciding the cases.

  5. Rectification of recorded facts, it is pleaded...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT