TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . M. SAHAI AND MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. COUNSEL AND MR. SAURABH SOPARKAR, SR. COUNSEL, ASSISTED BY MR. BIJAL CHATTRAPATI, MR. DARSHAN PARIKH, MR. SAURABH KIRPAL, MR. MADAN SAHOO, MR. A.M. HAVA, MS. SHRADDHA DESHMUKH, MS. AVANTIKA MALIK FOR SINGHI CO, MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SR, COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR. BIJAL CHHATRAPATI WITH MR. A.M. HAVA FOR SINGHI CO. FOR THE APPELLANT MR. NAVIN K PAHWA, MR. P.S. CHAMPANERI, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERALOF INDIA FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI) 1 We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Saurabh Soparkar assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati for Singhi Co. for appellant No.1; learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati for Singhi Co. for appellant No.2, learned Advocate Mr. Navin K.Pahwa for respondents No.6 and 7 and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 6. 2 The challenge in the present appeal at the initial stage was a show cause notice dated 21.6.2011 was issued by respondent No. 1 Forward Markets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 impleading him as party appellant No.2 or in the alternative as party respondent in the appeal. The said application was allowed by this Bench, vide order dated 31.01.2012 and the applicant was permitted to join as appellant No.2 in the Appeal. 6 The appellant No.1 also filed a Civil Application No. 8088 of 2011 to amend the prayer portion of the main appeal so as to challenge the impugned order dated dated 23rd July, 2011 passed by the respondent No.1 Commission. The said Civil Application was allowed, vide order dated 29th July, 2011 and appellant No.1 was allowed to amend the prayer portion of the main appeal. Accordingly, the appellant No.1 carried out the amendment in the prayer clause and thereby prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2011 passed by the respondent No.1- Commission. 7 The appellant No.1 also preferred a Special Civil Application No.14917 of 2011 and challenged the very Order dated 23rd July, 2011 passed by the respondent No.1 Commission. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13th October, 2011, rejected the said petition, which reads as under: Heard Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore as well as Senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant No.1 had filed a Civil Application No. 9452 of 2011 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1039 of 2011 opposing the said action of the respondent No.3. The Division Bench, while disposing of the aforesaid Civil Application, has passed the order on 8th September, 2011, which runs as under: This application has been preferred by the applicant Neptune Overseas Limited, praying to restrain third respondent from holding the meeting pursuant to the Notice dated 26th August, 2011 and/or taking any action against the applicant with respect to the shares held by the applicant, in any manner whatsoever. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2.1 From the record it is evident that Forward Markets Commission, Government of India was holding meeting in the matter of National Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited, Ahmedabad as per Ref. No. FMC/Comp/vi/2010/12/14. At that stage, prayer was made that the Forward Markets Commission, Government of India should not decide any issue having no jurisdiction with regard to the matter for which show cause notice was issued on the applicant. This Court by order dated 18th July, 2011, while issued notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Forward Markets Commission, Government of India, giving reference to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In reply, learned counsel for respondent submitted that they will comply with the final order as passed by Forward Markets Commission, Government of India. In this background, we only make it clear that once Forward Markets Commission, Government of India has taken a decision on 23rd July, 2011 with regard to the impugned 29,32,280 shares presently held by applicant Neptune Overseas Limited, it will not be desirable for the General Body of the third respondent to bypass such order by directly cancelling the shares. 5. We accordingly allow the General Body to hold its Extraordinary meeting and may pass a Resolution authorizing the Exchange to refer the matter to the appropriate authority under the Companies Act, 1956 for cancellation of irregular allotment of 29,32,280 shares, as ordered on 23.7.2011 by Forward Markets Commission, Government of India. The appropriate authority under the Companies Act will decide the question in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 6. CA stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. It is needless to sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
