Tax Management India.Com

Home Page

Home List
← Previous Next →

2009 (10) TMI 957

Appeal no. 142 of 2008 - Dated:- 6-10-2009 - N.K. Sodhi and Samar Ray, JJ. JUDGMENT N.K. Sodhi, 1. Whether the appellants are persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter called the Act) is the primary question which arises for our consideration in this appeal. 2. GHCL Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) is a public limited company whose shares are listed on the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., the Bombay Stock E .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roceedings have been initiated, the earlier directions issued under Sections 11(4) and 11B of the Act were revoked by order dated 4.11.2008. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and are inclined to uphold the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Board. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Board argued that the appellants are not persons who can be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order and, theref .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

busy body of meddlesome interlopers. Persons in the last category were said to be those who interfere in things which do not concern them and act in the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. The learned judges further observed that the distinction between persons aggrieved and strangers was real and laid down the following broad tests in this regard: Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffe .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals? When we apply the aforesaid tests to the facts of the present case, our answer to each test is in the negative. As already observed, the appellants are small shareholders of the company and whatever rights they may have qua the company, they are not concerned with the action sought to be taken by the Board against the erring market players. While ordering investigations, the Board felt that some of th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ession having regard to the fact that the Board while taking disciplinary proceedings against the so called delinquent entities deals with their private rights and with particular individuals/entities and strangers like the appellants have no concern with such proceedings. The appellants could be aggrieved by the impugned order only if that order is materially adverse to them. They are required to establish that they have been denied or deprived of something to which they are legally entitled in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce the case of the appellants. Their Lordships observed that the meaning of the words "person aggrieved" vary according to the context of the statute and in the background of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality, the aforesaid words must get a liberal interpretation. In that case the learned judges were dealing with the Advocates Act, 1961 wherein the role of the Bar Council was compared to the role of the guardian in professi .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rasad Somani v. Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India Appeal No. 23 of 2002 decided on September 27, 2002. This was an appeal filed by a shareholder of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., which was being taken over by the Tayal Group. The appellant made a complaint that the takeover code had been violated and that the Tayal Group had not come out with a public announcement thereby depriving the appellant of his right to exit the bank as a shareholder. The Board after enquiry concluded that th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →