CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 10 SEBI CK 0109

Comfort Intech Ltd vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India And Others

Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai · Decided on 22 October 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer · M. T. Joshi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Application No.1198 Of 2021, Appeal No. 650 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 350 words

Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Whole Time Member (hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') dated February 2, 2021 whereby the WTM discharged the noticee from any violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAST Regulations').

2.

We find that the appellant has preferred appeal No. 363 of 2021 which was dismissed by this Tribunal on May 21, 2021. Thereafter, the recall application was filed which was also rejected by this Tribunal on July 30, 2021. The appellant has filed a fresh appeal against the same order again.

3.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. National Construction Company, Bombay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1497 of 1996 dated January 9, 1996) contending that the principles of res judicata will not be applicable since the appeal was dismissed not on merit but on account of non-joinder of necessary parties in the appeal.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appeal is not maintainable and the decision cited by the appellant is clearly distinguishable and is not applicable in the instant appeal. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

5.

The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage, it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax and/or email.