Supreme Court - Daily Orders
La Fin Financial Services Private ... vs Multi Commodity Exchange Of India ... on 1 October, 2021
Bench: Vineet Saran, Aniruddha Bose
ITEM NO.12 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15514/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-09-2021
in IA No.247/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
LA FIN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.124236/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 01-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Mihir Kamdar, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Vora, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Lakhawat, Adv.
Ms. Mansi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sameer Pandit, Adv.
Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR
Ms. Sarrah Khambati, Adv.
Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Jain, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Ved, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sameer Pandit, learned counsel who appeared on caveat and perused the record. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2021.10.04 17:13:34 IST Reason: In the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court except 1 to the extent that instead of Rs.25 lakhs, which has been been imposed as costs, the sum shall stand reduced to Rs.1 lakh. However, the question of law raised in this petition shall remain open.
It was next argued that there are certain remarks which were made in the impugned order, which may reflect the conduct of the counsel appearing before the High Court. In this regard, we may only mention that the petitioner shall have liberty to approach the High Court for modifying that part of the order so that such remarks are withdrawn or deleted.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the special leave petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
2