Full Text
DLF LTI). .....Appellant
Through Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Bikash Mohanty, Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Ms. Yashmit Kaur and Mr. S. Kashyap, Advs.
Through Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. • Anirudha Mitra, Ms. Neha Khurana, Mr. Vinay Khurana, Mr. Vinay Tripathi and Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Advs.
Mar. Neeraj Malhotra and Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Advs. for
SEBI.
Mr. Arvind Kurnar Nigarn, Sr.
Adv. with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai and Mr. Shailesh Suman, Advs. for Sudipti Estates Pvt.
Ltd.
± LPA 441/2010 SUDIPTI ESTATES PVT LTD .....Appellant
Through Mr. Arvind Kumar Nigam, Sr.
Advs.
Through Mr. Arnit Sibal, Mr. Gaurav Anirudha Mitra, Ms. Neha 2011:DHC:16725-DB
Mar. Neeraj Malhotra and Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Advs. for
SEBI.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA .....Appellant
Through Mar. Neeraj Malhotra and Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee, Advs.
Through Mr. Arnit Sibal, Mr. Gaurav Anirudha Mitra, Ms. Neha Mr. Arvind Kumar Nigam, Sr.
Advs. for Sudipti Estates Pvt.
Ltd.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA A ORDER 21.07.2011
Heard Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant in LPA No.436/2010, Mr. Arvind Kumar Nigam, learned senior counsel for the appellant in LPA No.441/2010, Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant in LPA No.488/2010 and Mr. Amit Sibal, learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals.
JUDGMENT
2. It is urged by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned single Judge could not have entered into a roving enquiry and contrary to the concept of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, since a writ Court is not to enter into the justifiability of the decision, as an appellate Court. Learned senior counsel would submit that the scope is limited to find out whether the decision has been taken adhering to correct principles that are pertinent and applicable to the decision making process. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, we find that he has accepted number of additional affidavits on record, recorded observations and issued certain directions, though the solitary grievance was that SEBI has failed to act appositely on the complaints filed by the writ petitioner. In course of hearing of the appeals, it is accepted that two A complaints were made to the SEBI on 4111 June, 2007 and 1 9th July, 2007, but no decision or outcome was communicated to the respondent. Thus, in the obtaining factual matrix the only mandamus that could have been issued to the SEBI is to take a decision on the basis of the complaints filed and communicate the decision to the complainant-respondent. Needless to say, an appeal would lie from such a decision. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned single W Judge is set aside in entirety. SEBI shall examine the complaints and take a decision and communicate it to the parties. Needless to emphasize, SEBI, if so advised in law, can always call for documents. We hope and trust, the SEBI shall act with utmost objectivity regard being had to the law in the field and without being influenced by the counter affidavit filed by it in the writ petition. The decision shall be taken after hearing the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. It needs no special emphasis to mention that we have not expressed any opinion, even remotely, on the merits of the case. The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.