Tribunal denies modification of order in appeal; applicant's plea on SEBI representation rejected.

The tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of a previous order in an appeal. The applicant's grievances regarding representation to SEBI and permission to make representations on all issues relating to violation of securities laws were addressed. The tribunal held that since the appellant's counsel accepted the suggestion to represent to SEBI, there was no need to modify the order. Additionally, allowing representation on non-appeal issues would expand the scope beyond the appeal's grievances, leading to the dismissal of the application without costs.

---

---

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.

---