2009 (10) TMI 957

es 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 Exchange Ltd., Mumbai and the Ahmedabad Stock 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

aforesaid provision makes it clear that only a "person aggrieved" could file an appeal against an order passed by the Board. Although the words "person aggrieved" have not been defined in the Act, they have a specific connotation and are well understood by courts and tribunals. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar and Ors. 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 hav .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

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 the delinquent entities like Respondents No. 2 to 5 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

trade. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upholding the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Board which we hereby do. 4. Before concluding, we may notice the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants. He cited Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC 702 to contend that the words "person 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 statute .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ich 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 there was no violation of the takeover code and that the Tayal group was not required to make a public 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 di .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X