Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

Must Read

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2)...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v....

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V....

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S....

Follow us

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the respondents. It sought that the court issues a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2018. The case was heard by Madras HC Judge Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner alleged that some NSE (National Stock Exchange) officials conspired with Software Vendor and OPG Securities by running illegal co-location service.  This led to manipulative price discovery and preferential access opportunities to few brokers. This, in turn, led these brokers to wrongfully gain several crore rupees.

The petitioner further complained that the then Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of NSE had launched its co-location facility, which allowed the members to rent rack space with low latency connectivity to the exchange. To investigate the alleged misconduct, SEBI constituted a Technical Advisory Committee. 

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioner alleged that there was another attempt by the then Managing Director of NSE to sabotage the regulatory enforcement action by SEBI. An independent professional entity was pressed into service to investigate if norms of fair access were breached. If so, were some brokers unduly benefitted by it. If they were benefitted, did that have to do with the collusion/misconduct of any NSE officials? 

The reports from both the investigations confirmed and further ingrained the allegations of misconduct on the part of the concerned NSE officials. 

The Financial Intelligence Unit – India, has the power to take action under Section 12 and 12A of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner pointed out that the Central Government has passed an order in the case of NSEL scam constituting the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short SFIO) to investigate the matter under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the same power ought to be exercised in the present case as well. 

NSE contended that in both the writ petitions by the petitioner has no locus standi. It is because at the relevant time 2010-14, the said petitioner has never availed the co-location services nor is he aggrieved as a broker or an investor or even as the user of the NSE service. 

NSE further submitted that the petitions were filed in the welfare of the public. But, trading in stocks is only private interest. Thus, the petitioner not being an aggrieved party, or related to the organization in any way cannot maintain the writ petitions. 

The first respondent, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs submitted that issues raised in the petition are monitored and regulated by SEBI. Therefore, SEBI not being added as a party to the petition makes the petition non-maintainable for non-joinder of parties. 

The Assistant Solicitor General also mentioned that copy of the report of the investigations taken by the authorities could be presented only to the Court and not to the public at large. 

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that the interest of the individual in the present writ petitions seem private. The petitioner is a complete stranger as he has never had contact with these agencies incapacity of trading or has suffered any losses due to their misconduct.  

Section 6(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, mentions the power of the Central Government to call for periodical reports or direct enquiries to be made. The show-cause notice was issued under Section 11 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. The prayer in both writ petitions was to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2018. The action had already been taken and the SAT had considered the matter. The petitioner had himself filed an independent appeal besides impleading himself in the other appeal. 

Court’s Decision

The Writ Petitions were dismissed.

Click here to see full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

Authority Cannot Interfere With Legal Heir Certificate When There Are No Issues Between 2 Wives: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India in Madras High Court. The case of Lakshmi Jagannathan v. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. was...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Notification of Bar Council on Spot Admission

On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of...

Death in Police Custody Requires Post-Mortem: Madras High Court

The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Madras High Court. The case of S. Prema v. The Superintendent of...

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order and states “Liberty of a Citizen cannot be taken away in the Absence of Lawyer”

In the case of Parveen v. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “a citizen’s liberty cannot be taken away”. This observation...

Revised Gratuity Ceiling Notified by Central Government Applicable To All Establishments Irrespective of Whether Controlled by the State or Centre: Tripura High Court

In the case of Sri Tapas Guha vs Tripura Tea Development Corporation Ltd. and others, a single-judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Akil Kureshi...

Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Case Appeal by OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The OPG Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was filed against an order passed...

Jharkhand High Court Disposes of Criminal Revision Petition Against the Judgment Passed by the Learned Sessions Judge With Modification

A criminal revision petition against the Judgment dated 23.07.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No.49/2014 was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -