Disposed

M/S Surya Marketing Ltd. v. Bse Limited & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1141/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-page order in a writ petition concerned the suspension of trading in the petitioner's securities by BSE. The court directed the petitioner to submit missing documents and appear for a personal hearing, while directing BSE to recall the suspension or pass a reasoned order within days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to occupy documents on or before February 16, 2016; direction to appear on February 19, 2016; direction to recall suspension or pass reasoned order on or before February 26, 2016.

M/S Surya Marketing Ltd. Vs Bse Limited & Anr. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~34.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) No.1141/2016 & CM No.5006/2016 (for stay).

¶4

M/S SURYA MARKETING LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Ranjan Kumar and Ms. Sougata Ganguly, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

BSE LIMITED & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shiv Lakshmi, Mr. Arindam Dey, Mr. Aditya Shankar and Mr. Udit Grover, Advs. for R-1.

¶7

Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for UOI.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.02.2016

¶12

The petition impugns the communication dated 8^th February, 2016 of the respondent no.1 BSE Ltd. informing the petitioner that trading in its securities shall be suspended w.e.f. 11^th February, 2016.

¶13

The counsel for the respondent no.1 BSE Ltd. appears on advance notice.

¶14

Though both counsels agree that the petition has to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 15^th January, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.12332/2015 titled Mahadushi International Trade Limited Vs. BSE Limited and another connected petition, as well as the subsequent similar orders, but the counsel for the petitioner contends that since the trading in the securities of the petitioner has not been suspended till now, stay thereof be granted. It is contended that similar stay had been granted in Mahadushi International

¶15

page 1 of 4

¶16

W.P.(C) No.1141/2016

¶17

Trade Limited supra also which also had approached the Court prior to suspension coming into force.

¶18

The counsel for the respondent no.1 BSE Ltd. states that the communication dated 8^th February, 2016 has been issued only upon the failure of the petitioner to supply the following documents:-

¶19

(a) Original Auditors certificate.

¶20

(b) Resolution passed by the Board of directors for 6 preferential issues.

¶21

¶22

(d) Resolution passed by the company for allotment of the preferential issue for all the issues.

¶23

(e) List of allottees of all the preferential issues.

¶24

(f) Bank statements to reflect receipt of funds (duly highlighted) raised through preferential allotment. Supporting documents relied upon by the auditor giving list of allottees for each of the preferential allotments and list of entities whereby the funds are utilized (duly highlighted in the bank statements) with regards to point No.4 & 5 as mentioned in the BSE notice dated 18/12/2015 with proper cross—reference viz. the certificate issued by the auditor.

¶25

However it is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner did not exist in the notice dated 21^st December, 2015 of the respondent no.1 BSE Ltd. listing the companies against which action was intended to be taken. It thus appears that the petitioner has been made aware for the first time vide communication dated 8^th February, 2016 only.

¶26

page 2 of 4

¶27

W.P.(C) No.1141/2016

¶28

In this light of the matter the petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶29

(i) The petitioner to on or before 16^th February, 2016 furnish the aforesaid documents and any other document on which it seeks to rely, to the respondent no.1 BSE Ltd.

¶30

(ii) The petitioner to appear before the concerned official of the respondent No.1 BSE Ltd. on 19^th February, 2016 at 1100 hours for personal hearing.

¶31

(iii) The respondent No.1 BSE Limited to, on or before 26^th February, 2016, if satisfied, recall the communication dated 8^th February, 2016 of suspension of trading of the shares of the petitioner and, if not satisfied, to pass a reasoned order and furnish a copy thereof to the petitioner.

¶32

(iv) As far as the challenge in the petition to the notice dated 18^th December, 2015 is concerned, directions in that regard have already been issued in the order dated 15^th January, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.12332/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 226/2016 supra and thus need to reiterate the same does not arise. It is however clarified that the petitioner shall also be entitled to seek enforcement of the said directions.

¶33

Till the decision as aforesaid is taken by the respondent no.1 BSE Ltd., the trading in the securities of the petitioner be not suspended as notified in the impugned communication dated 8^th February, 2016.

¶34

Needless to state, the petitioner if remains aggrieved shall have remedies in law.

¶35

page 3 of 4

¶36

W.P.(C) No.1141/2016

¶37

No costs.

¶38

Dasti under signature of Court Master.

¶39

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶40

FEBRUARY 10, 2016 ‘pp’..

¶41

W.P.(C) No.1141/2016 page 4 of 4

M/S Surya Marketing Ltd. v. Bse Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Surya Marketing Ltd. v. Bse Limited & Anr.

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

Manoj Kumar Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anirudh Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sangeeta Rai Vs the Sdmc and Anr.

The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

R.K. Anand & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Vs M/S Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Krishan & Co. Vs UOI & Ors.

Ranjan Dhingra Vs Narender Singh Narula & Anr.

Speed Track Cargo Vs State Bank of Patiala and Ors.

Tarun Sharma Vs Ali Zulfikar Ahmed & Anr.

National Heritage Protection Council Vs Lt Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Ram Lal Chawla Vs Sarla Katyal

Raman Prabhakar Vs Central Bank of India and Ors.