Allowed

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Mumbai v. Financial Technologies India Ltd.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2009APP/65/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the appeal with a consent order, appointing KPMG as the current court commissioner to conduct an inspection and ordering the clearance of enclosed products pending further court orders.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of by appointing KPMG as Court Commissioner and directing clearance of respondent's products.

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Mumbai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 20 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1 OF 2009

¶5

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd.

¶6

).. Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Financial Technologies (India) Ltd. ).. Respondents

¶9

Mr Rafique Dada, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr E P Bharucha, Senior Counsel, Mr Chetan Kapadia, Mr Vikram Trivedi, Mr Sachin Chandarama and Ms Priyanka Vegad i/b Ms Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Appellants.

¶10

Mr Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr Amol Bavare and Mr Mihir B Kamdar i/b Udwadia Udeshi for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶12

DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY 2009

¶13

P.C.

¶14

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at some length. The challenge in the present Appeal is to the orders dated 12^th January 2009 and 30^th January 2009 passed at ad-interim

¶15

-2-

¶16

stage in Notice of Motion No. 20 of 2009. It is not necessary for us to examine the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised before us as the learned Counsel appearing for the parties submit that the Appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage with a consented order. The agreed terms are :-

¶17

(a) KPMG stands appointed as Court Commissioner in place of the entities indicated in Clause (1) of the operative part of the order dated 30^th January 2009 impugned in the present Appeal. KPMG shall conduct an inspection in terms of Clauses 16 and 34 of the Undertaking which is annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit “H”. KPMG shall proceed with the inspection with expedition after due notice to the parties;

¶18

(b) As the Notice of Motion is pending before the learned Single Judge, liberty to the parties to make specific mention for early disposal of the Notice of Motion;

¶19

(c) Liberty to the parties also to apply to the learned Single Judge in view of the inspection note of KPMG, if necessary;

¶20

-3-

¶21

(d) In the meanwhile, the empanelled prodcuts of the Respondents will be cleared by the Appellants.

¶22

However, clearance of such products, shall be subject to the directions or orders which may be passed hereafter by the Court in the Notice of Motion or even otherwise;

¶23

(e) Any observations made by the learned Single Judge are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and will have no bearing on the final decision of the Notice of Motion.

¶24

The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The orders dated 12^th January 2009 and 30^th January 2009 passed in Notice of Motion No.20 of 2009 stand modified to that extent. The consent order shall be part of the Court's order. No order as to costs.

¶25

In view of the disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives in Notice of Motion No. 644 of 2009 and the same is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Mumbai v. Financial Technologies India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. Mumbai v. Financial Technologies India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanaji Maruti Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Nitin B. Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Bnaburao Koyande and 4 Others Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others

Subhash Chander Sharma Vs Union of India and 8 Ors.

Idbi Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maytas Infra Ltd. and Others