Disposed

Ram Bachchan Singh v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC25 Nov 2013CWJC/5504/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ application filed by an investor against SEBI and trading entities was disposed of. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with subsequently obtained transaction evidence to the Board within four weeks for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation with subsequent evidence before the Board within four weeks for fresh consideration.

Ram Bachchan Singh Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Patna HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5504 of 2007

¶3

====================================================== Ram Bachchan Singh, Son of Late Shri Jagdeo Singh, Resident of 7A, Gajrar Gorakhani, P.S. – Town – Sasaram, District Rohtas .... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The Union of India. 2. Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mittal Court B. Wing Ist Floor, 224, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

¶6

1. National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Ist Floor Parle View Apartment, 99 Rash Behari Avenue, Kalkata-700029.

¶7

1. Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited 304-05, 2nd Floor Ashiana Plaza, Budh Marg, Patna-1.

¶8

1. Proprietor Mansukh, Secureities and Finance Ltd., 416 Pratap Bhawan, 5 Bahadur Sah Jafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.

¶9

1. Kamaldeo Narayan Pratap son of Late Krishna Nandan Choudhary, Street No.8A, Gajrar Gorakhani, P.S. – Town – Sasaram, District Rohtas, Proprietor of M/S Choudhary Consultancy Services, Ganesh Market,G.T. Road, Sasaram, District Rohtas. .... .... Respondents

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent-SEBI: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sharma Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. N.A. Shamsi, ASG

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

6 25-11-2013 Case of the petitioner is that, believing on the representation of respondent no.7 that he was a sub-broker of respondent no.6, he invested certain money with respondent no.7. However, when he tried to encash his securities, it was informed by respondent no.6 that respondent no.7 was not its sub-broker. Hence, they are not liable for any investment made by him with respondent no.6.

¶14

Accordingly, petitioner complaint to the National Stock

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.5504 of 2007 (6) dt.25-11-2013

¶16

2/3

¶17

Exchange of India Limited, vide Annexure-2. The same was processed and finally petitioner received reply from the Stock Exchange through letter dated 31.07.2006 as contained in Annexure-7 that in absence of some supporting documents in respect of his claim against the trading member i.e. respondent no.6, they were unable to resolve the complaint of the petitioner.

¶18

In the counter affidavit also Securities and Exchange Board of India (in short, ‘the Board’) has reiterated the same stand.

¶19

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investment of the petitioner was traded by respondent no.6 through Stock Holding Corporation and transaction statement of the Corporation dated 30.05.2006 contains evidence of such transaction. However, he admits that since this transaction statement of the Corporation became available to the petitioner much late, it could not be produced before the Board by him as evidence to substantiate his case that investment of the petitioner was rooted by respondent no.7 through respondent no.6.

¶20

It appears that this evidence was not produced before the Board when it expressed inability to resolve the complaint of the petitioner.

¶21

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.5504 of 2007 (6) dt.25-11-2013

¶23

3/3

¶24

with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Board along with subsequent evidence becoming available to him in support of his claim. If such a representation is filed by petitioner within four weeks with necessary supporting documents, the Board will be under legal obligation to consider his case afresh, examine the documents produced by petitioner and take an appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶26

B.T/-

Ram Bachchan Singh v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bachchan Singh v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mangal Bazar Vyaparik Varg Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Mathur Vs the Bihar State Credit and Inves

Navin Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Mithilesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Akhilesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.