Nawal Basudeo Agarwal vs Bombay Stock Exchange Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal vs Bombay Stock Exchange Limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: leave granted to amend the cause title in respect of the 4th Respondent; 4th Respondent directed to respond by 23 July 2025 with no further time to be granted; matter listed on 23 July 2025. Petition not finally disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner should be granted leave to amend the Petition by correcting the cause title in respect of the 4th Respondent, which is now represented through its Resolution Professional following NCLT approval of the Resolution Plan. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court granted the Petitioner leave to amend the Petition by correcting the cause title insofar as the 4th Respondent is concerned, the 4th Respondent now being represented through its Resolution Professional, with Ms Roshani Shaikh appearing for the 4th Respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the 4th Respondent to respond on the issue of deletion of the Petitioner's name as promoter by the next date, 23 July 2025, and clarified that no further time would be granted, since SEBI has already held that the Petitioner is not the promoter of the 4th Respondent company, a position confirmed by SEBI's counsel.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.) interim order in Writ Petition No. 1254 of 2025 (Nawal Basudeo Agarwal v. Bombay Stock Exchange Limited), dated 09 July 2025. Noting that the Resolution Plan concerning the 4th Respondent was approved by the NCLT on 25 October 2024, and that Resolution Professional Mr Deepak Saruparia was not responding to Court notices, the Court granted the Petitioner leave to amend the Petition by correcting the cause title in respect of the 4th Respondent, now represented through its Resolution Professional (Ms Roshani Shaikh, i/b Profess Law Associates, appearing). Counsel for BSE and SEBI stated that the 4th Respondent must take steps to file an application for deleting the Petitioner's name as promoter, after which BSE would have no objection to directing CDSL (R2) to unfreeze the Petitioner's DMAT account; SEBI's counsel confirmed SEBI's finding that the Petitioner is not the promoter of the 4th Respondent company. The 4th Respondent was directed to respond by 23 July 2025, with an express clarification that no further time would be granted, and the matter was listed for 23 July 2025. No statutory provisions or precedents were considered; no final merits determination was made.

14-WP-1254-2025.DOCX

Amol

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 1254 OF 2025

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal …Petitioner

Versus

Bombay Stock Exchange Limited …Respondent

Mr Vivek M Punjabi , with Mr Priyansh R Jain, for the Petitioner.

Ms Zarnaab Aswad , with Mr Approva Upadhyay, i/b, Khaitan & Co, for the Respondent No. 1-BSE Ltd.

Mr Harsh Sheth , i/b, MDP Legal, for the Respondent No. 3.

AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV

Ms Roshani Shaikh , i/b, M/s, Profess Law Associates for Respondent No. 4.

Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.07.11 11:48:20 +0530

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 09 July 2025

PC:-

The learned Counsel for the parties points out that the Resolution Plan concerning the 4th Respondent was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal on 25 October 2024. Given the above development, it is possible that this is the reason why the Resolution Professional Mr Deepak Saruparia is not responding to the Court notices in this Petition.

Accordingly, we once again grant the Petitioner leave to amend this Petition by correcting the cause title insofar as the

Page 1 of 2

14-WP-1254-2025.DOCX

4^th Respondent is concerned. The 4^th Respondent may now by deleting representation through Resolution Professional. Ms Roshani Shaikh i/b, M/s Profess Law Associates now appears for the 4^th Respondent.

The learned Counsel for Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) point out that the 4^th Respondent will now have to take steps to file necessary application for deleting the Petitioner’s name as promoter of the 4^th Respondent company. They states that once this is done and the name of the Petitioner is deleted as promoter, the BSE has no objection to direct the Central Depositories Services (I) Ltd (R2) to unfreeze the Petitioners DMAT account.

Accordingly, we direct the 4^th Respondent to respond to this issue by the next date which shall now be 23 July 2025. We clarify that no further time will be granted to the 4^th Respondent because learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the SEBI has already held that the Petitioner is not the promoter of the 4^th Respondent company. This position is confirmed by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of SEBI.

List this matter on 23 July 2025.

(Jitendra Jain, J)

(M.S. Sonak, J)

Page 2 of 2