The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging listing fee demands by the Bombay Stock Exchange as it lacked territorial jurisdiction, an alternative remedy existed, and there was no prior formal written grievance to SEBI or BSE.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OD 1
WPO 595 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
JAINCO PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA Date : 7th February, 2022.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Jatinder Singh Dhatt,Adv. …for the petitioners
Mr. P.K.Dutt,Adv. Mr. S.K.Dutt,Adv. Mr. Syamantak Banerjee,Adv. …for the respondent no. 1
Mr. P.Khaitan,Adv. Mr. Anurag Basu,Adv. …for the respondent no. 2
Mr. Jayanta Sengupta,Adv. Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal,Adv. Mr. Shankharit Chakraborty,Adv. Ms. Maitree Roy,Adv. …for respondent no. 3
The Court:- The writ petitioner is aggrieved by a demand for payment of
listing fees raised by the Bombay Stock Exchange against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said demand on various grounds. Firstly, that the demand is excessive and onerous. It is secondly argued that power to specify and
2
direct listing fees has been transferred by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, to the concerned stock exchanges, under Section 11 of the SEBI Act of 1992. This, according to the petitioner, is contrary to law and an abdication of responsibilities by SEBI. There are other grievances also raised.
Counsel for the Bombay Stock Exchange challenges the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the Bombay Stock Exchange is located in Mumbai in the State of Mahrashtra. The Calcutta High Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The writ petitioner is also listed at the Bombay Stock Exchange.
It is next submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner has any cause of action, the availability of efficacious alternative remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal is a bar to this writ petition being entertained.
Counsel for the SEBI submits that the petitioner has never ever raised any grievance in writing formally with SEBI or with BSE. This, according to the petitioner, is in violation of the writ rules of the High Court, particularly Rule 26 thereof, i.e. absence of a demand for justice.
This Court is inclined to accept the submissions of the Bombay Stock Exchange on territorial jurisdiction having alternative remedy and the arguments of SEBI i.e. want of a formal demand of justice. The writ petition must therefore fail and the same is hereby dismissed.
3
The dismissal of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the writ petitioner moving the appropriate forum having jurisdiction under the law and in accordance with law.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
S.Chandra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Calcutta High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding a demand for listing fees from the Bombay Stock Exchange.
Whether the writ petition is barred by the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of a formal written demand for justice to SEBI and the Bombay Stock Exchange.
Jainco Projects (India) Limited
Securities and Exchange Board of India
Bombay Stock Exchange
Rajasekhar Mantha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
