2015 (7) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Appellants, viz. Review Application No.1 of 2015 in Appeal No.93 of 2014, Review Application No.2 of 2015 in Appeal No.104 of 2014, Review Application No.3 of 2015 in Appeal No.180 of 2014 and Review Application No.4 of 2015 in Appeal No.181 of 2014 for reviewing the Order dated 19/12/2014 passed by this Tribunal. The leading case of Dave Harihar Kiritbhai vs. SEBI was heard in details and it was agreed by learned counsel for Appellants and Respondent that decision in this case will be applicable to other also, since facts of all four cases are similar. 2. Main points raised in RAs are: * Respondent conducted investigation into IPO of RDB and its subsequent trading on listing day, since RDB scrip witnessed wide fluctuations in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 available when order was passed, but in present RA, no such condition is met. There is no case for review of decision of the Tribunal dated 14/12/2014. 4. Ld. Counsel for Respondent stated that Section 15U(2) states that - "the SAT shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) CP, while trying a suit, in respect of following matters: (e) reviewing its decisions.....