Disposed¶18

Suchitra Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Jun 2026WPA/3454/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suchitra Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 3454 of 2026, decided 12.06.2026 by Krishna Rao, J. Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent nos. 2 to 6 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2026 for re-classification of share-holding and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks; NSE fine under Regulation 17(1A) reversed during pendency; no findings on merits; liberty reserved to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Respondent nos. 2 to 6 directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 2nd February, 2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶18

Suchitra Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

12 12.06.2026 Court. No. 25 D.Hira

WPA 3454 of 2026

Suchitra Agarwal

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, sr. adv., Mr. Deepnath Roy Choudhury, Mr. Debraj Sahu, Ms. Jyoti Routh, Mr. tamoghna Saha.

¶7

… for the petitioner Mr. Arjun Ssamanta, Ms. Anita Saraswat. … for the respondent no. 7 Ms. Aasia Hasan, Ms. Akansha Yadav. … for the SEBI Mr. S. Nayak, Mr. Amar Singh, Ms. Tutul Das (Singh), Mr. Ranjit Singh, Ms. ALivia Bhattacharyya. … for the respondent (HFL)

¶8

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Dutt, Mr. Susanta Kumar Dutt, Mr. Sourjya Roy. … for the respondent no. 6

¶9

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ application the National Stock Exchange of India Limited by a communication dated 20^th March, 2026 reverse the fine leveled on the company under Regulation 17 (1A) on 30^th June, 2025.

¶11

¶12

He submits that as the National Stock Exchange of India Limited has already reversed the fine leveled on the company, the only grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application for consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner on 2^nd February, 2026 to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 for consideration of the request for reclassification of share-holding in the company.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that if this Court passed a direction for consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner, the respondents will consider in accordance with law.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has made a specific representation on 2^nd February, 2026 to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 by requesting for re-classification of share-holding in the company.

¶15

Thus, the respondent nos. 2 to 6 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2^nd February, 2026 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter, in case if the authorities go against the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶17

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶20

(Krishna Rao, J.)

Suchitra Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchitra Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Palit and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sambit Goswami Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ainul Sekh and Anr. Vs Chief Election Commission of India and Ors.

The President Gayaganga Navajeevan Rural Health and Development Society and Anr. Vs Subhas Singha and Anr.

Monalisa Debnath Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Pavan Supply Corporation Vs Union of India and Anr.