9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti 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 Commission, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, GOI, to appellant No.2, calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for the following charges: (a) You, Shri Kailash Ramkishan Gupta, the then MD/EVC and present VC of NMCE, are, therefore, directed to show cause in writing within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this Notice as to why action should not be taken/ initiated against you as the then Managing Director/Executive Vice Chairman of NMCE as well as in your personal capacity and in the capacity as the shareholder of the NMCE as stipulated in or under the aforesaid statutes for serious and illegal/fradulent acts of omission and commission detailed in this notice and listed more specifically in the para 11 of this notice. (b) You are also hereby required to show cause as to why the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecial 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 Counsel Mr. S.N. Soparkar appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Bijal Chhatrapati, for the petitioners. This petition raises the same and challenges an order which is also challenged in Letters Patel Appeal No.1039 of 2011 by virtue of an Amendment brought in by Civil Application and this petition cannot be entertained and, therefore, the same is rejected. However, it is made clear that the papers of this Special Civil Application are to be retained with the Appeal at the request of learned Advocates for the petitioners, to be used as paper book, for easy reference." 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants have urged that no show cause notice was issued either to the appellant No.1 or to the National Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited-respondent No.3. It is further urged that under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, there is no powe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /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 notice on respondents in LPA No. 1039 of 2011, observed as follows:" Let notice be issued on the respondents through Court and by Speed Post. Post the matter on 17th Aug. 2011. Pendency of the case shall not stand in the way of the appellant raising the question of jurisdiction of the authority to issue show cause notice. In such a case, the competent authority will consider the same. If any adverse decision is taken, the same shall be subject to decision of this appeal." 2.2 After the aforesaid observation, the Forward Markets Commission, Government of India passed a final order on 23rd July, 2011, which has been challenged by the applicant by filing a petition for amendment of the prayer, which was allowed. However, prayer for stay of the order dated 23rd July, 2011 passed by the Forward Markets Commission, Government of India was rejected by this Court on 29th July, 2011 and the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.7.2011 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 say that if any decision is taken by third respondent or its governing body or any other authority during the pendency of the appeal, it shall be subject to the result of this case. List main matter for hearing on 26th Sept. 2011." 12 Needless to mention that the effect of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench would be that any decision is taken in the meeting held on 19th September, 2011 is subject to the final outcome of the present appeal. 13 The next argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that in the Extraordinary Meeting for appointment of Managing Director was scheduled to be held on 6th February, 2012 as the term of the Managing Director Mr. Anil Mishra was expiring. It is worthy of noting that under our orders dated 31.1.2012, the same Managing Director was continued till the final disposal of the present appeal and once the appeal is finally decided, the term of Mr. Anil Mishra wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
