National Financial Reporting Authority v. BSR & Associates LLP

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Mr Kirtiman Singh, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that the impugned order has in fact gone beyond the earlier order that was passed by the coordinate Bench on 16.12.2020. 2.[1] A careful perusal of the operative directions contained in the orders, i.e., the impugned order and the order dated 16.12.2020 would show, that via the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has restrained the appellant from even passing an order, which was not the direction contained in the order dated 16.12.2020.

3. We have today disposed of two appeals [i.e., LPA Nos.113/2021 and 116/2021] wherein a challenge was laid to the order dated 16.12.2020. 3.[1] The effect of the order passed in these appeals is that status quo, as directed by the learned Single Judge via order dated 16.12.2020, will continue to obtain.

4. For the sake of convenience, the order passed by us today in LPA Nos.113/2021 and 116/2021 is extracted hereinafter: - “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]

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 that the writ petition is 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 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.

5. According to us, the order passed in LPA Nos.113/2021 and 116/2021 should also obtain vis-à-vis the parties concerned in the above-captioned appeal, i.e., LPA No.115/2021 as well. 5.[1] Therefore, to that limited extent, the order dated 01.02.2021 is modified.

6. The appeal is, thus, partially allowed.