TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at least one day in advance. (b) Based on the database of NSE and other parties rights in respect of the securities in question shall be reconciled/determined within one week thereafter. (c) This Tribunal will hear the matter further on Friday, July 03, 2020. In the interim status quo shall be maintained by the parties i.e. there shall be no transfer of securities as directed in the impugned orders nor the appellant shall alienate any of the securities in question. - Misc. Application Nos. 145 and 146 of 2020, Appeal (L) No. 175 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2020 - Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer, Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member And M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Gaurav Joshi, Sr. Adv., Neville Lashkari, Chait ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for NSE (Respondent No. 5) and Shri Nimay Dave, learned counsel appearing for Modex (Respondent No. 2) through video conferencing. 4. The basic contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the directions contained in the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No. 5 (NSE) are illegal and arbitrary as NSE directs the appellant to release certain securities for which the appellant is the actual owner since those securities have been legally transferred to its account. Further, such arbitrary directions have been passed without either giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant or even after a fair determination of the ownership of the securities which are directed to be transferred to certain clients, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have dues pending in favour of Respondent No. 2. Therefore the appellant sought to liquidate the shares contained in that list to enable the appellant recover its entitled amount of ₹ 21.62 crores and thereafter the remaining securities can be transferred. 6. Learned senior counsel Shri Dada and Shri Dhond, on the other hand stressed that the appellant is holding securities worth more than ₹ 90 crores given by Respondent No. 2 and the impugned direction is relating to only securities worth ₹ 34 crores. Even assuming that the appellant's entitlement is about ₹ 22 crores still the appellant is holding excess securities which legitimately do not belong to the appellant. Since the impugned directions are not yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
