National Financial Reporting Authority v. Akeel Master

Delhi High Court · 17 Nov 2022 · 2022/DHC/005296
Rajiv Shakdher; Tara Vitasta Ganju
LPA 113/2021
administrative appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order allowing NFRA to continue proceedings but restraining enforcement or publication of any orders without prior court approval, preserving parties' rights pending final adjudication.

Full Text
Translation output
NEUTRAL CITATION NO:2022/DHC/005296
LPA 113/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 17, 2022
LPA 113/2021
NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY .....Appellant
Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms Vidhi Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
AKEEL MASTER ......Respondent
Through: Mr V.P. Singh, Mr Aditya Vikram Jalan and Mr Raghav Seth, Advocates.
LPA 116/2021
NATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY .....Appellant
Through: Mr Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms Vidhi Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
N SAMPATH GANESH ......Respondent
Through: Mr V.P. Singh, Mr Aditya Vikram Jalan and Mr Raghav Seth, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
LPA 113/2021 & CM APPL. 10590/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief] &
LPA 116/2021 & CM APPL. 10628/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]
JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are directed against a common order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The operative directions passed by the learned Single Judge read as follows: - “Having considered the submissions made, as an interim order, it is directed that the respondent may proceed with the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner(s) in W.P.(C) 10446/2020 and W.P.(C) 10448/2020, however, any order passed in such proceedings shall not be given effect to, including its publication on the website, without seeking prior approval of this Court. In case the respondent takes a decision before the next date of hearing, the respondent shall be at liberty to approach this Court seeking variation of this order, if so advised.”

3. It is not in dispute, that the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge. 3.[1] Therefore, the merits of the matter are yet to be adjudicated by the learned Single Judge.

4. It is our opinion, that the aforesaid direction, at the interlocutory stage, preserves the status quo and rights of the parties till such time the writ petitions are adjudicated.

5. We may add, that as permission has been given to continue the proceedings, the interim direction will hasten the proceedings before the appellant, and at the same time preserve the rights of the respondents, as a direction has been issued that the order passed will neither be given effect to, nor will the same be publicized.

6. We make it clear, that continuation of the proceedings would be subject to all legal rights that may be available to the respondents.

7. Therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to interdict the proceedings.

8. The above-captioned appeals are, accordingly, disposed of along with pending applications.

9. Needless to add, the disposal of the appeals will neither affect the rights nor contentions of the parties that they may wish put forth before the learned Single Judge.

(RAJIV SHAKDHER) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU)

JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2022