9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 bearing No. NSE/CMO/0055/2003 dated September 23, 2003 issued as a part of surveillance review pursuant to its meeting with the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with a view to take preventive surveillance measure to ensure market safety and to safeguard interest of investors whereby, it has moved eight securities to trade to trade segment. The members were requested to note that these securities shall not be available in rolling segment. The respondent No. 4 is one of the securities moved to trade for trade segment. According to the petitioner he being the shareholder of the respondent No. 4 holding 45 lakhs shares has been seriously prejudiced by the aforesaid decision of the respondent No. 2. 2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Janak Dwarkadas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the respondent No. 4 in particular and the stocks of the companies under the said circular. Mr. Dwarkadas has further submitted that the decision of the respondent No. 2 is illegal, biased, unilateral and in contravention of the rules and by-laws and regulations and the Act under which the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are governed. 3. On the other hand Mr. Rafique Dada the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has stoutly defended its decision chal-lenged in the present petition. He submitted that the circular is not the final decision as it would be reviewed from time to time and there was nothing permanent or static about the said circular. The learned senior Counsel submitted that the decision was taken by the Committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out that by the said decision of the respondent No. 2, status position of the petitioner has not adversely changed and that value of the shares has not gone down. He further submitted that it was only an administrative decision taken by the expert bodies constituted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under the law to regulate its affairs in the interest of the shareholders and also in the interest of the economy. 4. Mr. Kumar Desai, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has also supported the submissions of Mr. Dada and Mr. Modi. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel of both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no substance in the writ petition, which purports to challenge the legality and validit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular. It is only the petitioner who claims to hold 45 lakhs shares of respondent No. 4 has filed the present petition claiming his fundamental right to trade freely without any restriction put by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We are not able to accept such far-fetched submissions. As far as the legality aspect is concerned we are satisfied that the circular issued by the respondent No. 2 is within the four corners of the law and is based on the expert opinion based on material on record. We are not inclined to expand the vistas of Article 226 of the judicial review to take control and have surveillance over the decision of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. We have no expertise to study this share market. The circular is purely an administrative d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
