TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and 24th being Saturday and Sunday). It is also an undisputed fact that lending against securities is a normal and permitted business activity of banks and NBFCs and SEBI is fully aware of the same. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order has prejudiced and adversely affected the rights of the appellant as a bonafide lender. Since it is the impugned order which has impacted the rights of the appellant, not arraying NSE and NSDL as parties, though their arraying might have brought in more facts on table, does not impact the maintainability of this appeal. Accordingly, without commenting on the merit of the case, we direct the WTM of SEBI to hear the appellant on the basis of their representation dated November 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s:- (iv) The Depositories shall not allow transfer of securities from DP account no. 11458979, named KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD. (BSE) with immediate effect. The transfer of securities from DP account no. 11458979, named KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD. (BSE) shall be permitted only to the respective beneficial owner who has paid in full against these securities, under supervision of NSE; 3. It is the contention of the appellant that Karvy has an outstanding obligation of ₹ 3,44,49,81,609/- + applicable interest and other charges towards the appellant and its said rights got destroyed by the impugned order. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned Senior Ccounsel Shri Janak Dwarkadas appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant could not invoke the pledge. At the same time before passing such an order which affected its rights the appellant was not given any notice or opportunity of being heard in any manner. On becoming aware of the impugned order, immediately on November 23, 2019 despite being a Saturday the appellant sent a representation to SEBI raising all these issues which, however, remain unanswered even today. Such unilateral action by SEBI has left the appellant to face the consequences of the impugned order despite no fault of the appellant. In this background given that the rights of the appellant are seriously affected and not providing an opportunity by SEBI has seriously prejudiced the appellant, the appellant seeks to quash the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be heard while passing the impugned order atleast on their representation they were entitled to be heard. It is on record that the appellant wrote to SEBI on November 23, 2019 (received by SEBI on November 25, 2019, 23rd and 24th being Saturday and Sunday). It is also an undisputed fact that lending against securities is a normal and permitted business activity of banks and NBFCs and SEBI is fully aware of the same. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order has prejudiced and adversely affected the rights of the appellant as a bonafide lender. Since it is the impugned order which has impacted the rights of the appellant, not arraying NSE and NSDL as parties, though their arraying might have brought in more fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
