Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The defendant BSE submitted detail written statement and raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the court below and also raised objection in entertaining the suit by the civil court by taking help of Section 23L of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') read with Rule 19(5) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957') framed under the Act of 1956. It was prayed before the trial court that the question of jurisdiction of civil court be decided before any issue. The trial court refused to decide the question of jurisdiction of civil court as preliminary issue, therefore, the petitioner-defendants preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7477/2006 before this Court. According to the petitioner-defendants, the question of jurisdiction was pure question of law and, therefore, it could have been decided without evidence of the parties. It was contended before this Court that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. It appears that the writ petition was not seriously contested by the plaintiff and, therefore, this Court by order dated 20.12.2006 passed in the above writ petition No. 7477/2006 allowed the writ petition of the present petitioners-defendants and directed the trial court to take up the issue with regard to the objection as to the maintainability of the suit as pointedly raised in para No. 5(b) of the written statement as a preliminary issue. This Court also observed that so far as the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction raised in para 5(a) of the written statement, that shall be taken up along with other issues.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the bar against the civil court's jurisdiction is very clear from the bare reading of Section 22E read with Section 23 L of the Act of 1956 and Sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1957. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the BSE has jurisdiction to suspend the trading in the shares of any Company who is its member and this fact is not in dispute. In the present case, the BSE suspended the trading in the shares of the plaintiff-Company is also an admitted fact. If the plaintiff is aggrieved against the said action of the BSE then the plaintiff could have preferred appeal under Section 23L of the Act of 1956. Not only this but in a case where the suspension in trading of a Company continues beyond the period of three months, then also the Company can prefer appeal as provided in second proviso to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1957. Therefore, when there is no order of continuation of suspension beyond the period of three months then also the Company can prefer appeal. It is submitted that the language of Section 22E is very wide and covers all matters on which the Securities Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act of 1956 to determine the dispute. The Section 22E of the Act of 1956 further provides that in such matters no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority and it has been made wide by making the provision that no injunction will be granted, not only in respect of any action taken but against the action which is to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act of 1956. Therefore, the injunction cannot be granted against the proposed action under the Act of 1956 which may be taken by the BSE.

10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent vehemently submitted that the plaintiff is not challenging any order of the BSE. The plaintiff in fact is claiming his civil right which accrued to the plaintiff on the basis of the contract between the BSE and the plaintiff. The Act of 1956 gives statutory recognition of plaintiff's right of having trading in its equity shares through BSE, though on compliance of all conditions by the plaintiff under the Act of 1956. The plaintiff-Company is member of the BSE. It shares were permitted to be traded through BSE. Because of some disputes among the Directors of the Company who are members of one family, trading in plaintiff's Company's shares were suspended by the BSE. That suspension of trading continued upto 17.8.2005 for almost more than four years. That suspension order was revoked by the BSE itself and that fact is admitted fact, therefore, the plaintiff cannot prefer any appeal under second proviso to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1957. Therefore, the plaintiff has right to claim through civil suit that the BSE or any of its authorised persons, have no right to prevent the trading in shares of the plaintiff-Company through BSE. It is emphatically submitted that the plaintiff is not challenging any of the orders of the BSE, rather say, the BSE itself has passed order in favour of the plaintiff Company and revoked the earlier passed suspension order for trading of securities. It is submitted that Section 23L clearly provides that any person aggrieved, by the order or decision of the recognised stock exchange, may prefer appeal under Section 23L. Since there is no order against the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent could not have preferred any appeal and, therefore, the Securities Appellate Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the claim of the plaintiff and in that situation, the bar of Section 22E is not applicable to the plaintiff's suit. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent further submitted that the plaintiff has not raised grievance against the continuation of its suspension beyond three months' period which is apparent from the averments made in the plaint, as the suspension in trading of the plaintiff's share continued for about four years. However, when the suspension of trading in plaintiff's share was revoked by the BSE then only the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff when despite revocation, the trading was not allowed by the BSE. In such facts only, remedy available to the plaintiff is by way of suit only.

19. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the trial court also framed issue No. 5 and in fact issue No. 5 is relevant issue and issue No. 7 was in fact the issue in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. However, both the parties in the trial court, proceeded on assumption that under issue No. 7, the question of jurisdiction on the basis of the plea taken by the defendant under Section 22E and 23L read with Sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 can be decided and the trial court decided the issue in the manner assuming that issue No. 7 is in relation to the plea taken by the defendants. Since no prejudice has been caused to any of the parties, because of that reason, the order of the trial court cannot be set aside on this ground. But, because of the order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the trial, there will be difficulty before the trial court in deciding issue No. 5, which relates to the question of jurisdiction of civil court on the basis of the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement. The finding as recorded by the trial court by order dated 12.1.2007, if remains as it is, then that will substantially cover the issue No. 5 also. None of the party ever prayed that issue No. 5 may be decided as preliminary issue. In view of the above, when it is not the case of the defendants- petitioners that issue No. 5 could have been decided by the trial court, as preliminary issue, then the order dated 12.1.2007, if will remain, that will cause legal complication, therefore, the order dated 12.1.2007 so far as rejection of all the pleas of the defendants taken in the written statement on the basis of the facts pleaded by the defendants, or ouster of civil court's jurisdiction is required to be decided after evidence and under issue No. 5. Issue No. 5 also cannot be treated decided because of the reasons mentioned above, that is, this issue is not pure issue of law.