Bombay High Court
Rahul H. Bajaj vs The Stock Exchange, Mumbai on 1 December, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
Yadav V.G. 1 Judg.903.wp.(os).634.02.odt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 634 OF 2002
Rahul H. Bajaj
of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant
residing at - 24/25, Bharatiya Bhavan,
72, Marine Drive Mumbai - 400 020. .... Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. The Stock Exchange, Mumbai,
through its Executive Director, having
its office at Jeejeebhoy Towers, Dalal
Street, Mumbai - 400 001.
2. M/S. Orient Share & Stock Brokers
Ltd. Having its office at Ground Floor,
Fairy Manor, 13, Rustom Sidhwa
Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 and its
Branch Office at 502, 5th Floor,
Rotunda Building, Bombay Samachar
Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400023. .... Respondents
Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Petitioner in person present.
Mr. Kingshak Banerjee and Mr. Dhruv Joshi i/by Wadia Ghandy &
Co for Respondent No.1/BSE.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A. S. GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : 1st DECEMBER 2016.
Yadav V.G. 2 Judg.903.wp.(os).634.02.odt.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta J.)
. Called out from the final hearing board, as listed again
today for disposal. None appeared for Respondent No.2 though
served.
2. The Petitioner who appearing in person, makes a
statement that so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, this Court
while admitting the Petition on 19th June 2002 has favourably
considered his case and passed the order, which is reproduced as
under :
"P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents waives
service. By way of interim relief we direct respondent no.1 to
pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 4,35,749.50 ps. on the
petitioner's furnishing a bank guarantee in a sum of Rs.
4,35,749.50 ps. of any Nationalised Bank in the name of
Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. This
payment shall be made only after thepetitioner furnishes the
said bank guarantee. The petitioner shall keep the said bank
guarantee alive till the petition is finally disposed of and for a
period of four weeks thereafter. Hearing expedited.
Yadav V.G. 3 Judg.903.wp.(os).634.02.odt.
4. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 prays for
stay of the above order. We do not find any reasonable
ground to stay the aforesaid order in view of the fact that we
have permitted the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for
the entire amount and only upon the petitioner furnishing the
said bank guarangee with Protohonotary & Senior Master,
High Court, Bombay, respondent no.1 has been directed to pay
the aforesaid amount. Under these circumstances we do not find
any ground to stay the above order and no prejudice is being
caused to respondent no.1, in view of the aforesaid Bank
Guarantee.
Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order
duly authenticated by the Associate/Personal Secretary of this
Court."
3. The Petitioner, therefore, from time to time has been
furnishing the Bank Guarantee. This Court on 14 th January 2016
disposed of the Appeal No. 225 of 2006 in Arbitration Petition No.
501 of 2003 filed by Respondent No.2 (Orient Shares and Stock
Brokers Ltd.). The order of "Dismissed in default" remained intact
till this date. There is no restoration application filed, as per the
Petitioner. Therefore, statement is made that nothing remained in
the Petition. The statement is also made that there is no liability to
pay any amount to Respondent No.2 in view of above reasons.
Therefore, there is no point in getting the Petition pending, as there
Yadav V.G. 4 Judg.903.wp.(os).634.02.odt.
is no challenge survived for furher consideration as of today.
Therefore, the submission is that the Petition need to be disposed
for the above reasons.
4. Taking over all view of the matter, at this stage we are
inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition, however, with clear
and standing rider that in case Appeal No. 225 of 2006 as
dismissed on 14th January 2016, if restored, the order passed by
this Court on 19th June 2002 will revive subject to the same
condition as ordered on 19 June 2002 of furnishing the Bank
Guarantee regularly till the appropriate order is passed.
5. The present Petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged
accordingly. No costs. All points are kept open.
(A. S. GADKARI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
