Bombay High Court
Modern India Ltd. And 3 Ors vs Financial Technologies(India) ... on 6 November, 2018
Author: Sandeep K. Shinde
Bench: Sandeep K. Shinde
Rane 1/5 NMS-1872-2018 (SR.901)
6.11.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1872 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 173 OF 2014
The National Spot Exchange Ltd. ...Applicant/
Orig. Defd no.2.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Modern India Ltd. And Ors. ....Plaintiffs
V/s.
Financial Technologies (India) Ltd.
And Ors. ....Defendants
******
Mr. Piyush Raheja a/w. Mr. Bhushan Shah and Ms. Neha
Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintiffs in Suit No. 121 of
2014.
Mr. K. Suryakrishnamurthy, Deputy Collector and
Competent Authority.
Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik, Advocate for the applicant-
original Informant.
Mr. Varun Shenabi I/by. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas,
Advocate for defendant no.1.
::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2018 01:29:24 :::
Rane 2/5 NMS-1872-2018 (SR.901)
6.11.2018
Mr. Akshay Patil a/w. Mr. Kyrus Modi, Advocate for the
plaintiffs in Suit No. 173 of 2014.
Mr. Arif Bookwala a/w. Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr.
Vishwanathan Iyer, Ms. Purvi Doctor and Mr. Shashank
Trivedi I/by. Naik Naik & Company, Advocate for the
applicant-defendant no.2-NSEL.
Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
(Vacation Court).
Tuesday, 6 th November, 2018.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Arif Bookwala, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant no.2 in support of the Notice of Motion. Heard Competent Authority in person and heard learned Counsel for the original petitioner.
2. This Notice of Motion was filed on 2nd August, 2018 and amended on 2nd November, 2018 whereby prayer clause (c) has bee incorporated which reads as under :
::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2018 01:29:24 :::
Rane 3/5 NMS-1872-2018 (SR.901)
6.11.2018
"(c). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of Motion, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct and injunct the Competent Authority from distributing the amounts deposited in the NSEL Escrow Account or in the Competent Authority Account or the amounts lying with this Hon'ble Court or with any other Court to the trading and clearing members of the Applicant Exchange or to any other person, without prior permission sought from the Hon'ble High Court Committee."
3. Reliance is placed on para-11 of the order dated 2nd September, 2014 passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No. 240 of 2014 in Suit No. 173 of 2014 and other connected matters. The observation in the said paragraph suggest that, all the parties, even in the pending proceedings before the MPIDA Court or any other Court or authority, are required to approach the Hon'ble High Court and have a particular arrangement vetted by this Court on a report of the Committee. On the basis of these observations, it is suggested by Mr. Bookwala, Learned Senior Counsel that the MPIDA Court, or any other Court or authority cannot ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2018 01:29:24 ::: Rane 4/5 NMS-1872-2018 (SR.901) 6.11.2018 independently disburse the amount to the investors without first approaching this Court.
4. The Competent Authority has brought to my notice the order dated 16th October, 2018 passed in Misc. Application No. 384 of 2016 whereby the Competent Authority was allowed to make equitable distribution of amount amongst the investors. It is submitted across the bar that, approximately Rs.33 crores have been disbursed to the investors. Defendant no.2 (Applicant in this Notice of Motion) had filed an intervention application No. 384 of 2016 in Misc. Application No. 384 of 2016 before the Designated MPIDA Court, which came to be rejected on 28th February, 2017.
5. The fact remains, the order dated 28th February, 2017 has not been challenged by defendant no.2 nor a copy thereof is placed on record alongwith the ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2018 01:29:24 ::: Rane 5/5 NMS-1872-2018 (SR.901) 6.11.2018 Notice of Motion. It is informed, while dictating this order that the Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28th February, 2017 and it is pending before this Court.
6. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to grant any ad-interim relief. The ad-interim relief is refused.
7. Place the Notice of Motion before the Regular Court.
8. The additional affidavit tendered by defendant no.2 is taken on record. He is directed to supply copies to the contesting respondents.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) ::: Uploaded on - 06/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2018 01:29:24 :::