Bombay High Court
Altina Securities Pvt. Ltd vs National Stock Exchange Of India And 3 ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S.Sonak
Digitally signed (17) WP-193.2020.docx
by LAXMIKANT
2024:BHC-OS:16033-DB
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2024.10.11
14:09:26 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2020
1. Altina Securities Pvt. Ltd., ]
A company registered under the ]
provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 ]
and having its registered office at 303, ]
Anand House, 13th Road, Off Linking ]
Road, Khar, Mumbai 400 052 by the ]
hands of its Director/authorized ]
Representative Mr. Clifton D'silva ] ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. National Stock Exchange of India, ]
Exchange Plaza, C-1, Block G, ]
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
]
2. Milton Pereira, ]
Adult Indian inhabitant, having ]
his address at Aashiyans, Near ]
Sagar Park, Sagarshet, Behind ]
Aapla Bazar, Vasai (W). ]
Mumbai 401201 ]
]
3. Narayan Parulekar, ]
Adult Indian inhabitant, having ]
his address at Aashiyans, Near ]
Sagar Park, Sagarshet, Behind ]
Aapla Bazar, Vasai (W), ]
Mumbai 401201 ]
(Deleted) ]
]
4. Desia Pereira, ]
Adult Indian inhabitant, having ]
his address at Aashiyans, Near ]
Page 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2024 23:25:35 :::
(17) WP-193.2020.docx
Sagar Park, Sagarshet, Behind ]
Aapla Bazar, Vasai (W), ]
Mumbai 401201 ]...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
A PPEARANCES -
Adv Suny Shah, a/w Adv Bhandary i/b. Bhandary & Bhandary,
for the Petitioner.
Mr Ranjeev Carvahlo, a/w Mr Sachin Chandarana, Mr Amol
Rasal i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for Respondent No.1-
NSE.
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S.Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 09 October 2024
JUDGMENT (Per MS Sonak J):
-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The Petitioner challenges the 1st Respondent's action in
attaching an amount of approximately Rs.37,00,000/--from
the Petitioner's deposit with the 1st Respondent, which was
blocked pursuant to an IGRP order dated 11 March 2016.
4. In terms of the IGRP order, the Petitioner claims to have
paid Respondents 2 and 4 the entire awarded amount of
approximately Rs.37,00,000/-. Respondents 2 to 4, however,
dispute this.
(17) WP-193.2020.docx
5. This Court invested considerable time and energy in this
matter to see whether an amicable settlement on terms
honourable to both parties could be reached. From time to
time, several orders were made to resolve the dispute within
the limited parameters of judicial review. However, such
efforts do not appear to have borne any fruit.
6. By our orders dated 28 November 2023 and 12
December 2023, we had directed the designated officer of the
1st Respondent to verify the rival claims. However, the 1st
Respondent claims that this was not possible due to the
parties' non-cooperation.
7. The Petitioner, consistent with its case, has produced
certain evidence of payment to the Respondents. Initially, the
Respondents took up the plea that some of such payments
related to "different transactions". However, later on, this plea
was retracted. Still, a plea of some "oral understanding" was
set up and it was claimed that the payments were explainable
based on such oral understanding. There was a further claim
that the amounts above whatever determined by the IGRP
order were, in fact, payable to the Respondents.
8. The parties have filed their affidavits in the matter. Still,
based on the affidavits, this Court will not be able to
adjudicate the disputed questions of fact that arise in this
Petition.
9. At the same time, we think that there was no
justification for the 1st Respondent not to undertake the
exercise directed by this Court vide its orders dated 28
November 2023 and 12 December 2023. The learned counsel
(17) WP-193.2020.docx
for the 1st Respondent submitted that since the parties were
attempting a settlement, this exercise was not completed lest
there be any hindrance in the settlement process.
10. Therefore, without going into the issue of whether any
writ is maintainable against the 1st Respondent or the issue of
disputed questions of fact, we direct the designated officer of
the 1st Respondent to hear the Petitioner and Respondent
Nos. 2 and 4 and decide on whether or not the IGRP order
dated 11 March 2016 stands complied with or not. The
designated officer of the 1st Respondent must consider the
rival contentions and, on hearing the parties, pass and
communicate a speaking order within three months from
today. All parties' contentions are left open, to be decided by
the designated officer of the 1st Respondent in the first
instance.
11. However, the order must not be given effect for four
weeks from its communication to the parties. This means that
if the designated officer holds that there is compliance with
the IGRP order dated 11 March 2016, for four weeks from the
communication of this order to the parties, including, in
particular, the Respondents herein, the attachment must not
be lifted or the amount released to the Petitioner.
12. Similarly, if the designated officer holds that there is no
compliance with the IGRP order dated 11 March 2016, the 1st
Respondent must not, for a period of four weeks from the date
of communication of this order to the parties, including in
particular the Petitioner herein, release the retained amount
or any part thereof to the Respondents.
(17) WP-193.2020.docx
13. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties,
four weeks' time is granted so that they can take appropriate
proceedings to safeguard their interests once the designated
officer of the 1st Respondent passes and communicates the
speaking order to the parties.
14. If any parties are aggrieved by the decision of the
designated officer of the 1st Respondent, they shall have the
liberty to take out such proceedings as are available under the
law for redressing their respective grievances.
15. The Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the above
terms without any costs for orders.
16. All concerned must act upon an authenticated copy of
this judgment and order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J)
