Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S C.M. SETHI versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S C.M. Sethi v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 43812 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14970 (31 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon. Ran Vijai Singh,J.

1. The petitioner is broker and member of the U.P. Stock Exchange, Kanpur(UPSE Act). An order has been passed by Securities Exchange Board of India(SEBI) under Rule 11 of Securities Contract (Regulation Rule 1957) on 18.2.2005 debarring the petitioner for different period as mentioned in the order. The petitioner filed an appeal before the SAT, Mumbai. This appeal was dismissed on 6.7.2006 on the ground that it is not maintainable. Hence, the present writ petition.

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Singh and Sri Sanjay Goswami counsel for the respondents.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that

(i) There is no provision to prohibit a member of the stock exchange merely on the ground that he is doing the carry forward transaction.

(ii) Carry forward transaction is no where defined and as such petitioner cannot  be debarred.

(iii) Petitioner does not perform any carry forward transaction.

4.   It is not necessary to decide these questions at this stage. It is not disputed by the parties that appeal before SAT did not lie and it was rightly dismissed as not maintainable. However, Rule 11 of the rules itself empowers the SEBI to modify and issue direction.

5. In the circumstances of the case,the petitioner may file a representation before respondent No.1. In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided  by respondent No.1  by a speaking order, if possible, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelop along with the representation. The respondent No.1 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.

6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 31.8.2006

A.K.-43812/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.