AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Misc. application no.524 of 2021 has been filed praying for stay of the impugned order. It was urged that on 14th February, 2020 the Tribunal while entertaining the appeal had granted an interim order. This fact was communicated to SEBI vide letter dated 6th March, 2020. This submission has also been stated in para 3.10 of the application. Having perused para 3.10 and the letter dated 6th March, 2020 written to SEBI we do not find anything to indicate that the Tribunal had passed a stay order on 14th February, 2020 which could not be incorporated in the order. Further, we find that no effort was made by the appellant to move a misc. application immediately after the passing of the order on 14th February, 2020 bringing the said fact to the notice of the Tribunal that the stay order has not been incorporated in the order of 14th February, 2020. We find that it has taken more than one year for the applicant to move this application for urgent stay order. We also came to know that the appellant has already deposited the amount pursuant to the impugned order under protest. In view of the aforesaid, no stay is required to be granted at this stage. The stay application is rejected. Registry is directed to list this appeal on the date already fixed earlier.
Parties are directed to contact the Registrar 48 hours before the date fixed to find out as to whether the hearing would take place through video conferencing or through physical hearing.
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.