Dismissed

Vis-Ram Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2017WP/576/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court via writ petition seeking relief against Respondent No.1 and directing other respondents on share dealings. Court held dispute with private company requires civil remedy, not writ. Petition dismissed as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; right to approach appropriate forum reserved; interim order vacated.

Vis-Ram Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Securities and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2017)

(WPL 531 of 2017)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) No.531 OF 2017

¶6

Viz-Ram Financial Services Private Limited. ...Petitioner Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

***********

¶8

Mr. R. Subramanian for Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Anubhav Ghosla i/b. The Law Point for Respondent No.1 Mr. Sameer Pandit a/w. Eshan Sinha i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.2 ***********

¶10

CORAM : V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ

¶11

DATE : MARCH 3, 2017

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed this petition

¶14

seeking the following reliefs.

¶15

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondent No.1 ordering them to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents to rescind all actions claimed as taken by them ostensibly based on the grievance

1/3

(WPL 531 of 2017)

redressal proceedings conducted by 1^st Respondent in respect of the shares of 2^nd Respondent held in the name of 4^th Respondent in Folio No. 472424 such shares since allotment in 1995 being solely entitled to be dealt with by VIL and to restore and strictly act as per the terms of the irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of VIL, as it prevailed in respect of the shares in the said Folio since allotment of the shares in 1995;

¶20

b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition:

¶21

(I) The 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents be restrained by injunction from issuing any duplicate shares in respect of the 2500 shares in Folio 472424 in the 2^nd respondent company to any person other than VIL as POA holder of 4^th Respondent.

¶22

(ii) The 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents be restrained by injunction from in any manner making or allowing any transfer or dematerialisation of any of the shares in the 2^nd Respondent held in Folio No. 472424 in the 2^nd respondent company other than on demand by VIL as POA holder solely entitled to deal with the shares in the said Folio;

2/3

(WPL 531 of 2017)

(iii) The 4^th Respondent be injuncted from in any manner dealing with the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondent in respect of any shares in Folio 472424 in the 2^nd respondent company.”

¶27

A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for Respondent no.2. It is submitted that the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy and it is a dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 which is a private party and, therefore, no writ can be issued against Respondent No.2.

¶28

The learned counsel for the SEBI submits that no direction has been given by the SEBI against the Petitioner Company as alleged by them in the petition.

¶29

In our view, the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of either approaching the Company Court or file a suit. There are several disputed questions of law and this Court cannot go into the same at this stage and as also the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, reserving the right of the Petitioner to approach before the appropriate forum, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶30

[ P.R. BORA, J.] [ V.M. KANADE, J.]

¶31

Vaishali Tikam

¶32

3/3

Vis-Ram Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vis-Ram Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and 3 Ors.

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

Purnima C Shah and Anr. Vs M/S Sia Developers LLP and 15 Others

Supreme Infrastructre India Ltd. Vs the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Div. and Ors.

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. Vs the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Bharati Manoj Changediya Vs the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Premji Keshavji Chedda and Anr. Vs Central Vigilance Commission and Ors.

Premji Keshavji Chedda and Anr. Vs Central Vigilance Commission and Ors.