9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner claims to have no funds to secure the IGRC s directions. Petitioner has openly flouted the discipline imposed by the SEBI circular dated 26 September 2013. We regret to say that the entire objective appears to be to somehow keep the pot boiling and frustrate the claimants attempts to secure any amounts based on the IGRC order. Surprisingly, the petitioner has not even bothered to implead the claimant, Blue Sea International, as a Respondent in this Petition. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court had declined to exercise its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction favouring the Petitioner in Dealmoney Securities Pvt Ltd Vs National Stock Exchange of India [ 2019 (2) TMI 2121 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] after referring to the SEBI s circular dated 26 September 2013 to streamline and make the investor grievance mechanism more effective. The record shows that several constituents have filed complaints against the Petitioner for large amounts. Now, by order dated 26 November 2024, the Petitioner has already been declared the defaulter. All these circumstances suggest that the Petitioner only wants to depart from the discipline imposed by SEBI s circulars or the NSE s by-laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d unconstitutional. 3. Mr Rushin Kapadia, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned clause provides that once a member is disabled or show cause is issued for declaring such member as a defaulter to a Trading Member (TM)/Clearing Member (CM) (whichever is earlier), no further Investor Grievance Redressal Committee ( IGRC )/arbitration meetings shall be conducted. He submits that in this case, the Petitioner has a claim against Blue Sea International, the complainant, before the IGRC. He submits that on account of the impugned clause, the Petitioner is deprived of the arbitration remedy. He submits that such restriction is unreasonable and arbitrary, mainly because the show cause notice, after response, may as well be discharged. He submits that denial of such remedy violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly, the impugned clause must be struck down. 4. In this case, the IGRC ordered on 8 November 2021, directing the Petitioner to pay Blue Sea International approximately Rs 1.54 Crores. In terms of the SEBI circular dated 26 September 2013, the Petitioner had to give an intimation within seven days to the stock exchange from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay or secure the amounts. 11. Under the above circumstances, we are satisfied that the petitioner is abusing our extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction to buy time, having solemnly declared that it has no means to pay. The Petitioner made but unconditionally withdrew his request for arbitration. Therefore, the Petitioner, at least prima facie, cannot now urge that it wishes to proceed with arbitration. However, on account of Clause 7, which is now challenged in this Petition, it cannot do so. The Petitioner claims to have no funds to secure the IGRC s directions. 12. The Petitioner has openly flouted the discipline imposed by the SEBI circular dated 26 September 2013. We regret to say that the entire objective appears to be to somehow keep the pot boiling and frustrate the claimants attempts to secure any amounts based on the IGRC order. Surprisingly, the petitioner has not even bothered to implead the claimant, Blue Sea International, as a Respondent in this Petition. 13. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court had declined to exercise its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction favouring the Petitioner in Dealmoney Securities Pvt Ltd Vs National Stock Exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find no special circumstances to make an exception from the procedure laid down, which is designed to secure confidence in the trading of the Stock Exchange. 11. The terminals of the petitioner would be shut down only if the petitioner does not furnish the requisite margin amount. The hearing was adjourned twice for the petitioner to inform about security for the blocked amount. The petitioner to inform about security of a residential flat of his family members, without original title deeds. Thereafter, during the course of arguments, the petitioner stated that 50% of the amount would be generated within six weeks. Dr. Saraf is correct in pointing out that the Stock Exchange cannot sell the immovable properties, that to recover to the amount payable to the Complainant. That is not the role of the Stock Exchange. Shut down of terminals is not an order passed by the SEBI, but a situation created by not securing the amount and the margin money. 16. The Petitioner before us is also a member of the National Stock Exchange. The methodology prescribed in the circular of 2013 has been operative for almost 11 to 12 years. The Petitioner is very aware of this methodology and, therefore, de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
