9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r does not call for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136. Any further elaboration of the reasons for our satisfaction could have adverse impact on the case. Therefore, we desist. Special Leave Petition is dismissed. - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36711 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2015 - J. Chelameswar And Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J. 1. This special leave petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 03.11.2014 of the High Court of Delhi passed in OA No.11 of 2013 in CS (OS) No.272 of 2004. 2. Both the parties, the petitioner and the respondent, are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company is a Stock Exchange within the meaning of the expression stock exchange defined under Section 2(j) Section 2(j). stock exchange means (a) anybody of individuals, whether incorporated or not, constituted before corporatisation and demutualization under sections 4A and 4B, or (b) a body corporate incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), whether under a scheme of corporatisation and demutualization or otherwise, for the purpose of assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivery position in Settlement No.2001148 of more than 1,00,000 shares. The Defendant then showed a draft letter dated 22.03.2001 to the Plaintiff and others present at separate meetings and arbitrarily accused the members including the Plaintiff of collusive transactions and informed the members present in the basis of reversal of transaction, with a draft reply from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not acceded to this mode/option of dealing with the crisis. Para 23 of the Plaint 7. Eventually, an amount of ₹ 8,76,89,708/- was paid by the plaintiff which according to averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is under no legal obligation to pay. According to the plaintiff, the said amount was paid under protest. The relevant part of the plaint reads as follows: While issuing the second cheque of ₹ 1,89,708/- dated 23.03.2001 it was made clear to the Defendant in the covering letter to the cheque that the Plaintiff is making the payment of ₹ 8.76 crores under protest and subject to the conditions that the same shall be refunded to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff has entered into all bonafide transactions and acted within the Rules and Bye- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Documents/Delivery Register, settlement wise delivery statement, indicating clearly the following whether shares having mark to market loss, against which temporary reprieve has been claimed by members in a settlement, from payment of MTM margin money shortfall, have been actually delivered at the end of the settlement from 01.09.2000 to 31.04.2001. IX. Margin Report (date wise) together with full particulars of payment of Margins as per the given format from 01.09.2000 to 31.04.2001. X. Produce the following: Business Volume handled by you in the following format: (a) Dealings in top 20 securities in descending order of volume. (b) Dealings with top 20 brokers so far as off market deals are concerned in descending order of volume from 01.09.2000 to 30.04.2001. (c) List of top 20 clients separately in terms of number of transactions and the value of transactions from 01.09.2000 to 30.04.2001. (d) List of top 20 clients separately in terms of number of transactions and the value of transactions as far as off market transactions are concerned from 01.09.2000 to 30.04.2001. (e) Details of defaults in payment/delivery in 2 years 1999-2001. (f) Fund borrowed if any on short term or lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be summoned would be relevant for effective disposal of the present suit and if so, the defendant deserves to be granted relief as sought and recorded a conclusion, Once the Hon ble Single Judge came to the conclusion that the documents sought to be produced were not relevant for the adjudication of the suit and the order was also upheld by the Hon ble Division Bench, the issue of relevance cannot be reopened by the Joint Registrar. 14. In the appeal against the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Joint Registrar, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by impugned order recorded various reasons for not interfering with the order of the Joint Registrar Para 10. (a) Firstly, it appears that the present suit is a simple suit for recovery of the amount which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It also appears from the averments made in the application as well as the grounds raised in the appeal that the defendant seeks production of the documents for investigation which is pending against various parties in collateral proceedings. The power of investigation, if any, under Section 11C of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is with Securities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
