9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was dismissed. 2. The appellant was granted recognition in 1989 as Stock Exchange under the 1956 Act. The recognition was renewed from time to time; the last of such renewal being in 2006. On February 27, 2007, the appellant was issued show cause notice by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to show cause as to why its recognition be not withdrawn under Section 5(1) of the 1956 Act. The show cause notice indicated diverse failures and non-compliances on the part of the appellant. The appellant responded to the show cause notice. The full time member of SEBI, vide his order dated July 5, 2007, ordered withdrawal of recognition of the appellant and further directed that the trading members of the appellant shall cease to be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 Act by the whole time single member of SEBI was unjust, arbitrary and de hors the provisions of the statute. 5. The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application vide order dated November 11, 2007 and considered the submission of the appellant in the following manner:-- "Section 29A is reproduced hereunder :-- 29A. Power to delegate. The Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, direct that the powers (except the power under section 30) exercisable by it under any provision of this Act shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, be exercisable also by the Securities and Exchange Board of India or the Reserve Bank of India constitute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Shelat that no remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner cannot be accepted." 6. As regards appellant's contention of non-consideration for renewal of recognition, the High Court observed in para 11 of its order that there was efficacious alternative remedy available to the appellant. 7. Not satisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed by this Court on March 10, 2008. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant preferred the present Civil Appeal under Section 22F of the 1956 Act against the order dated July 13, 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 8. In para 2 of the Civil Appeal, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above issue is express and unambiguous and the Special Leave Petition therefrom has already been dismissed by this Court. 11. At this stage, Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that as regards the subsidiary company floated by the appellant in the name and style of SKSE Securities Limited (for short, 'subsidiary') is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1-SEBI the functioning of the subsidiary and the sub-brokers of subsidiary has not been challenged and, therefore, this Court may clarify the position in this regard. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 (SEBI), it is stated that the appellant and its subsidiary are two different legal entities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
