Midas Touch Investors ... vs Union Of India & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 9394 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of decision: 17th December, 2015

+              W.P.(C) No.4251/2015 & CM No.7697/2015 (for directions).

       MIDAS TOUCH INVESTORS ASSOCIATION           .... Petitioner
                    Through: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                  Versus
    UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                     ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, with Mr. Rohitendra Deb, Ms. Sanjugeeta Moktan, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Mr. Virat K.

Anand, Mr. V.S.A. Naseeb, Mr. Printhu Garg and Mr. Vyan Shah, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks a

direction to the respondent no.2 Securities & Exchanges Board of India

(SEBI) (i) to implement the Delisting Regulations, as enunciated in the

Circular dated 29th December, 2008, in true letter and spirit and in a time

bound manner, with respect to all the Regional Stock Exchanges (RSEs)

including those which have been derecognized; (ii) to restore the

fundamental rights of the shareholders of 5152 companies which were

exclusively listed at RSEs which have been derecognized; (iii) to direct all

RSEs, including the derecognized stock exchanges, to issue orders of

delisting individually for all 5152 companies exclusively listed on those

RSEs and who have failed to get themselves listed at Nationwide stock

exchanges, either on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) or National Stock

Exchange (NSE); and, (iv) to frame a proper mechanism to compensate

shareholders of companies listed on RSEs who have suffered huge loss due

to derecognition of various RSEs. Axiomatically, the petition also impugns

the Circulars dated 30th May, 2012 and 22nd May, 2014 of the respondent

no.2 SEBI with respect to the Exit Policy for derecognized stock exchanges

and companies exclusively listed therewith.

2. The petition is claimed to be filed for the benefit of

investors/shareholders of the companies exclusively listed on RSEs which

have been derecognized. It is the plea of the petitioner that the said

investors/shareholders are unable to individually approach for redressal. The

petitioner however, though claiming to have been working for investors'

protection and further claiming to be a leader well recognized in the said

field/subject, has not pleaded having received a single complaint from any of

the shareholders for whose benefit the petition is filed. Being of the view

that considering the subject matter, the petition is not required to be

entertained as a PIL, we on the very first date when the petition came up

before us heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsels for the

respondents appearing on advance notice and reserved judgment.

3. The counsels for the respondents placed before us a copy of our order

dated 8th July, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.3952/2014 titled Atul Agarwal Vs.

Union of India, also filed as a PIL for the benefit of shareholders of the

companies listed on RSEs which were then sought to be derecognized and

which writ petition was dismissed observing that the legal tool of PIL was

not invented for such like matters. It was further observed that ample

provision had been made for the said shareholders and the shareholders

could not be said to be socially or economically backward to be unable to

access justice themselves. It was thus the contention of the counsels for the

respondents that this petition also is not entertainable as a PIL.

4. We have minutely gone through the averments in the petition. Though

the averments in this petition are much more detailed than were in Atul

Agarwal supra but it cannot be said that the reliefs claimed in this petition

are any different from that claimed in Atul Agarwal supra. We also feel that

if any of the shareholders have any grievance, on their approaching SEBI

with the grievance against any company, requisite action will be taken.

5. We therefore do not see any reason to take a different view from that

taken by us in Atul Agarwal and dismiss this petition.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 17, 2015 'pp'..