Dismissed

Bse Ltd. v. Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Mar 2019LPA/163/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by BSE Ltd. challenging a writ order that granted liberty to claim compensation without finding explicit illegality. The Court observed that matters pendente appellate were not for indulgence and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant shall have liberty to raise all available grounds in the pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Bse Ltd. Vs Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~38.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 163/2019

¶4

BSE LTD ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Surekha Raman, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

ABDULLAH ALI BALSHARAF & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Biswajit Bhattarcharya, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Mr.Shivaang Gupta, Adv. for R-1&2.

¶7

Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.Randeep Sachdeva, Ms.Mallika Hiremath, Adv. for R-4.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 08.03.2019 Caveat No.233/2019

¶12

Since the learned counsel for the respondents have entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. C.Ms.No.10879-80/2019 (exemptions)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

LPA No.163/2019

¶15

Challenging a finding recorded by the learned writ Court in its order dated 9^th January, 2019 in W.P.(C) 3531/2018 and the observations contained in Para-93 thereof this appeal has been filed under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Act. Para-93 of the impugned order reads as under:-

¶16

LPA 163/2019

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

“93.It is seen that orders under Section 17 of the PMLA freezing the said shares and the amount released in the bank account of the petitioners has since been passed and,the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Keeping this in view, no further orders are being passed and it would be open for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy including compensation for any loss suffered by them on account of the illegal actions on the part of the respondents.” (emphasis supplied)

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner before us that nowhere in the order passed in the writ petition there is any indication of illegal action by the appellant/BSE and, therefore, the liberty granted for claiming damages against the appellant herein being one of the respondents in the writ petition is illegal and unsustainable.

¶20

The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents refutes the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and submits that the matter is pending in appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA Act before the Appellate Authority, who shall consider the matter in accordance with law. That apart, the learned senior counsel submits that in the appeal pending, no compensation or damages has been claimed.

¶21

Considering the fact that the liberty has only been granted to the petitioner in the original writ petition to seek appropriate remedy including compensation and loss, if any suffered, at this stage, we are inclined to make any indulgence into the matter. In case any claim for damages or compensation is made, the appellant shall have liberty to take all such grounds as available to the appellant including the grounds as are canvassed in the appeal before us. The authority concerned is then expected to proceed LPA 163/2019 Page 2 of 3

¶22

in the matter in accordance with law.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands dismissed. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MARCH 08, 2019

‘anb’

Page 3 of 3

LPA 163/2019

Bse Ltd. v. Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bse Ltd. v. Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors.

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

Navin Manwadhikar Sanrakshan Sansthan Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Saurav Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Mata Krishnawati Memorial Educational Society (Regd) and Ors.

Mukesh Saini Vs Madan Lal Saini & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs the State (Nct of Delhi )

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs MD Rafique & Anr.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Urmila Devi