Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (10) TMI 957

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Exchange Ltd. The appellants are shareholders of the company and they hold very small number of shares each. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) ordered investigations into the trading in the scrip of the company and pending investigations, it issued directions among others, to the JALCO Group of companies and its associate entities including Respondents No. 2 to 5 and its associate entities restraining them from buying, selling or dealing in the shares of the company directly or indirectly. This order was an ex-parte order passed on April 25, 2007 under Sections 11(4) and 11B of the Act. Respondents No. 2 to 5 alongwith others were subsequently given a personal hearing by the whole time member of the Board. Inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. AIR 1976 SC 578, the learned judges of the Supreme Court were examining the question of locus standi of the appellants therein and laid down tests to distinguish between persons aggrieved and strangers and 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 suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ought to be restrained from accessing the capital market till such time the investigations are over and subsequently on the completion of the investigations it was of the view that adjudication proceedings should be initiated against them. The Board was fully justified in taking such a view keeping in view the facts as they emerged from the investigations. The appellants cannot be allowed to interfere with such regulatory matters which is the function and duty of the Board and fall within its exclusive domain. They cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order by which the earlier directions restraining Respondents No. 2 to 5 from accessing the securities market were withdrawn. They can only be termed as busy body of meddlesome inter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rson aggrieved should be given a wide meaning so as to entitle the appellants to maintain the present appeal. We have carefully gone through this judgment and find that it does not advance 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 professional ethics. In this context, their Lordships made the following observati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ic announcement. On an appeal filed by the appellant, an objection was taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellant therein was not a person aggrieved. The preliminary objection was overruled and the appeal was rightly held to be maintainable. This case has no parallel with the facts of the case before us. The dispute in that case was whether a public announcement was required to be made under the takeover code and the Board found that it was not required to be made. This deprived the appellant of his right to exit as a shareholder and it was rightly held that he was a person aggrieved. This case is different on facts and does not advance the case of the appellants. For the reasons recorded above, we uphold th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates