Disposed

Dindayal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Market Commission and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2007WP/76/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an impugned order imposing a heavy penalty and trading terminal disconnection without prior hearing. The Court, invoking Article 226, ordered the deposit of a sum and bank guarantee to restore trading facilities and direct the respondent to issue a show-cause notice and conduct a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Deposit of Rs. 25,21,846/- and bank guarantee to get trading terminals reconnected; issuance of show-cause notice; personal hearing to be held; penalty not to be acted upon for 4 weeks after the adver

Dindayal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Forward Market… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2007

¶5

Dindayal Commodities Pvt.Ltd., .. Petitioners.

¶6

vs.

¶7

Forward Market Commission
& Anr... Respondents.

¶8

Mr. P.N. Modi a/w Mr. Ranjit Bhosale i/by

¶9

Thakordas & Madgavkar & Co.

¶10

for petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Birendra Saraf a/w Ms. Neeta Ganglani

¶12

i/by M/s. M.K. Ambalal & Co.
for Respondent no. 2.

¶13

Mr. Vijay Kantharia a/w Mrs. Madhuri Gaikwad

¶14

for Respondent No. 1.

¶15

Coram: J.N. PATEL &,

¶16

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.

¶17

Date: 7th February, 2007.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

.Heard.

¶20

2.The petition can be disposed of at the stage of

¶21

¶22

admission itself without going into the merits of the
matter. We are prima facie of the view that the
respondent has initiated action against the petitioners
vide the impugned order without giving him an
opportunity of hearing. Therefore, as the impugned
order visits the petitioner with the penalty of a sum
of Rs. 1,00,87,384/- and disconnection of their
trading terminal, the respondent ought to have given an
opportunity of hearing in consonance with the
principles of natural justice to the petitioners before
taking such drastic action. Therefore, we pass the
following order:-

¶23

(i)This order is being passed without prejudice to
the respective rights and contentions of the
parties and the issue of maintainability of a
Writ Petition against Respondent No. 2 is also
kept open.

¶24

(ii)Upon the Petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.
25,21,846/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Twenty One
Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Six Only) and a
bank Guarantee of Rs.25,21,846/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred
Forty Six Only) with Respondent No. 2,
Respondent No. 2 shall forthwith reconnect the
Petitioners’ Trading Terminals and permit the
Petitioners to carry on trading in the normal

¶25

¶26

course.

¶27

(iii)Respondent No. 2 shall issue a Show Cause
Notice to the Petitioners within two weeks from
the date of deposit and furnishing of Bank
Guarantee and give the Petitioners an
opportunity to file its reply and give a
personal hearing in the matter. Respondent No.
2 shall pass a reasoned order in the matter
within four weeks from filing of the reply by
the Petitioners.

¶28

(iv)If the order which would be passed by the
Respondent No. 2 is adverse to the Petitioners
the same shall not be acted upon in any manner
whatsoever nor will the aforesaid Bank Guarantee
be encashed for a period of 4 weeks from the
date of communication of the order of the
Petitioners.

¶29

(v)If the order is in favour of the Petitioners
then the Respondent No. 2 shall refund the
aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,21,846/- to the
Petitioners within one weeks time from the date
of the order and discharge the aforesaid Bank
Guarantee immediately.

¶30

(vi)Writ Petition disposed off in the aforesaid
terms with no orders as to cost.

¶31

¶32

3.As we have disposed of the petition, the
notice of motion and chamber summons do not survive
and the same stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(J.N. Patel, J. )

Dindayal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Market Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dindayal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Market Commission and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Era Alkoloids and Exports Ltd. Vs Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.

Chandrakant Hargovinddas Shah Vs Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister, Maharashtra State and 2 Ors.

The G. T. B. Hospital Doctors Union and 2 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Gerald Paul D Mello Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbi and 2 Ors.

M/S. Aatish Dani Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ritesh Narottamdas Dani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.