Cpr Capital Services Limited vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 94 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review order passed by a relevant authority under the exchange's reconsideration clause, which is made without affording the affected member an opportunity of hearing, without rebuttal of the material placed before the authority, and without any reasons, is a total lack of application of mind and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be sustained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision : 09.05.2019
Misc. Application No. 87 of 2018 And Appeal No. 94 of 2018
CPR Capital Services Limited A-66, 2nd Floor, Guru Nanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi - 110 092. ...Appellant
Versus
National Stock Exchange of India Limited Plot No. C-1, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent
Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate with Mr. Chinmay Paradkar, Advocate i/b Prakash Shah & Associates for the Appellant.
Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, Advocate i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.
The present appeal has been filed questioning the veracity
and legality of the order dated February 8, 2018 passed by the 2
Disciplinary Action Committee ('DAC' for short) of the
National Stock Exchange of India Limited ('NSE' for short) by
which the appellant who is the broker has been expelled from
the membership of the NSE. Since the expulsion order has far
reaching consequences, the appellant filed a review application
on February 27, 2018 and within 24 hours thereafter the review
application was rejected by an order dated March 1, 2018. The
appellant being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present
appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Prakash Shah, the learned counsel for
the appellant and Shri Rashid Boatwalla, the learned counsel for
the respondent.
3. Clause 17 of the NSE Rules provides a provision for
reconsideration / review of its orders. For facility, the said
provision is extracted hereunder:-
(17) Subject to the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 the relevant authority may of its own motion or on appeal by the trading member concerned within 90 days from the date of communication of decision of the relevant authority to the member reconsider and may rescind, revoke or modify its resolution withdrawing all or any of the membership rights or fining, censuring or warning any trading member. In a like manner the relevant authority may rescind, revoke or modify its resolution expelling or suspending any trading member."
3 4. We find from the impugned review order dated March 1,
2018 that a note was placed by the office of the NSE before the
DAC with a request to consider the review application of the
appellant. Two boxes were placed before the DAC. In one box
it was written 'Review Rejected' and in the other box it was
written 'Review Accepted'. The DAC ticked the box which
contained the message 'Review Rejected'.
5. In our view there is total lack of application of mind.
Review application is required to be dealt after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant which in the instant case
was not done. Any observation made by the NSE in the note
placed before the DAC was required to be rebutted, if any, by
the appellant which was also not done. We also are of the
opinion that a reasoned and speaking order should have been
passed by the DAC. There is total absence of expression or
opinion giving reasons for rejecting the review application. The
impugned order is, thus, violative of Article 14 of Constitution
of India and cannot be sustained.
6. On this short ground we quash the review order dated
March 1, 2018 and remit the matter again to the DAC to decide 4
the review application afresh after giving an opportunity of
hearing within two months from today. Appeal is allowed with
no order as to costs.
7. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the Misc.
Application no. 87 of 2018 does not survive and the same is also
disposed of as infructuous.
Sd/-
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C.K.G. Nair Member
Sd/-
Justice M.T. Joshi Judicial Member 09.05.2019 Prepared and compared by:msb
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free