Bombay High Court
Rajkumar Nagpal And 16 Ors vs Reliance Commercial Finance ... on 3 December, 2021
Bench: G.S. Patel
P1IAL-14224-2021 IN COMSL-14223-2021.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 27370 OF 2021
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 14224 OF 2021
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT (L) NO. 14223 OF 2021
Rajkumar Nagpal & Ors ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd & Ors ...Defendants
Mr Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate, with Mr Mustafa Doctor,
Senior Advocate, Suraj Choudhary, Mihir Mody, Dhaval Patil &
Arnav Mishra, i/b K Ashar & Co, for the Appellant in
Commercial Appeal (L) No. 27370 of 2021.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Rohan Mathur, i/b Anoma Law Grp
SHEPHALI LLP, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 10.
SANJAY
MORMARE Mr Prateek Seksaria, with Karan Rukhana, Subir Kumar & Disha
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Shah, i/b SDS Advocates, for Respondent No. 11.
Date: 2021.12.03
17:45:55 +0530
Mr Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Yohaann Limathwalla, i/b
J Sagar Associates, for Respondent No. 12.
Dr Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, with Siddharth Ranade &
Samrudhi Chothani, i/b Trilegal, for Respondent No. 13 (Vistra
ITCL (India) Ltd).
Mr Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate, with Mr Prasad Shenoy,
Aditi Phatak, & Kirti Ojha, i/b Udwadia & Co., for Respondent
No. 14-RBI.
3rd December 2021
P1IAL-14224-2021 IN COMSL-14223-2021.DOC
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 3rd December 2021
PC:-
1. The matter is placed before me. By an order passed today by
the Division Bench for an urgent clarification of my order of 28th
October 2021, and which is challenged in Appeal. I have already
once clarified that order at the instance of some of the parties on
15th November 2021.
2. The present clarification is sought at the instance of SEBI.
The Appeal Court specifically asks for a clarification as to whether
the compromise recorded in that order of 28th October 2021 was by
consent even of SEBI. Paragraph 17 of 28th October 2021 order says
that the order has the consent of all parties. Hence the request for
clarification.
3. SEBI was not, as I recollect, a party to the Suit but was a
Respondent to the IA. I had directed notice to SEBI and called for
an Affidavit. Mr Dada learned Senior Advocate argued extensively
on that Affidavit. After judgment was reserved, I asked the principal
contesting parties (other than SEBI) to consider a settlement, which
they ultimately did. SEBI obviously could not be a party to any such
compromise. Paragraph 12 of my order therefore dealt, though
briefly, with the contentions of the SEBI. That paragraph of the
order is not by consent, but is an order in invitum. Paragraph 18 of
the order is specifically for SEBI's protection and is also not by
consent.
3rd December 2021
P1IAL-14224-2021 IN COMSL-14223-2021.DOC
4. Consequently, the last line of paragraph 17 which says that the
order is by consent of all parties is necessarily subject to this one
exception as regards the contentions of SEBI and which I have dealt
with in paragraphs 12 and 18.
5. I do not believe any further clarification is required. Mr
Seksaria, Mr Khandeparkar and Mr Kadam all urge me to note that
the SEBI did not protest or object when this order was being passed
in open Court. I do not think I can make any such observation at all.
SEBI had placed its submissions on Affidavit and through Counsel
and which I dealt with in paragraphs 12 and 18 of my 28th October
2021 order.
6. There is nothing further that needs to be added.
7. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy
of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J)
3rd December 2021
