Dismissed

M S K Kumari v. Securities Exchange Board of India

Bombay HC19 Nov 2024WP/3829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner M. S. K. Kumari sought leave to withdraw written petition No. 3829 of 2024. The Court refused blanket liberty due to potential misuse, granting liberty only to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Petitioner was permitted to withdraw deposited amount of Rs. 85,45,501 directly into her account.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition granted subject to liberty to approach the appropriate forum for contentions; withdrawal of deposited security amount of Rs. 85,45,501 with interest permitted direc

M S K Kumari vs Securities Exchange Board of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

ppn 1 910.wp-3829.24.docx

¶2

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

¶3

Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2024.11.19 18:30:31 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.3829 OF 2024

¶4

M. S. K. Kumari Versus Securities Exchange Board of India & Ors.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

Ms. Neha Anchlia a/w Mr. Mahaveer Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Omprakash Jha a/w Mr. Abhay Chavhan for respondent no.1-SEBI. Ms. Kinjal Shah a/w Mr. Aman Sadiwala for respondent no.2. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat a/w Ms. Krushi N. Barfiwala and Mr.Shlok Bodas i/by Parinam Law Associates for respondent no.3-NSE.

¶8

Mr. Sagar Divekar a/w Mr. Abhimanyu Mhapankar for respondent no.5.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATE : 19 November 2024

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Ms. Anchlia, learned counsel for the petitioner, based on instructions from the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with certain liberties.

¶13

Ms. Anchlia submits that the amount of Rs.85,45,501/deposited by the petitioner in this Court may be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest, if any, that has accrued on this amount.

¶14

Second, she submits that the liberty may be granted to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum raising all contentions as they have been raised in this petition.

¶15

Mr. Kamat, learned counsel for NSE-respondent no.3 and Mr. Jha, learned counsel for SEBI-respondent no.1 submit that Rule was

¶16

ppn 2 910.wp-3829.24.docx

¶17

issued in this petition restricting the same only to prayer clause (a). They point out that the other prayer clauses were given up by the petitioner. Accordingly, they submit that if any blanket liberty is granted, the same, may not be correct and such liberty would most likely to be misused by the petitioner.

¶18

At this stage, we only propose to grant all the parties liberties to take such proceedings and raise such defences as may be available under the law. This is not the stage for deciding on the precise content of the liberties for instituting proceedings or defending proceedings. Therefore, we clarify that the liberties will be subject to all parties’ rights and contentions and without foreclosing any contention of any parties.

¶19

Accordingly, we allow the petitioner the withdrawal of this petition subject to liberties in the above terms. Furthermore, we permit the petitioner and the petitioner alone to withdraw the amount of Rs.85,45,501/- alongwith interest, if any, that has accrued on this amount. For this purpose, the petitioner would have to indicate her bank account into which the Registry must transfer the amount directly. We clarify that this amount shall not be transferred into the bank account of the power of attorney or any person other than the petitioner. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn with liberties in the above terms.

¶20

(Jitendra Jain, J .)

¶21

( M. S. Sonak, J.)

M S K Kumari v. Securities Exchange Board of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S K Kumari v. Securities Exchange Board of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aditya Enterprises vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Dhanashree Developers Prtivate Limited through Mr Shankarrao a Borkar vs Union of India

Nds Art World Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Osd Ot and Wt and Ors.

Lj Victoria Private Limited vs Union of India

Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Krone Tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Juja G Ram vs Principal Commissioner of Cgst and Cx Mumbai South