LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-409

ESQUIRE MONEY GUARANTEES LTD. 4F2, COURT CHAMBERS, 35 NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI. R/BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Vs. BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, STOCK EXCHANGE TOWERS, 51, 1ST CROSS, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE R/BY GENERAL MANAGER, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Decided On August 02, 2012
Esquire Money Guarantees Ltd. 4F2, Court Chambers, 35 New Marine Lines, Mumbai. R/By Authorized Signatory Appellant
V/S
Bangalore Stock Exchange, Stock Exchange Towers, 51, 1St Cross, J.C. Road, Bangalore R/By General Manager, The Securities And Exchange Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality and correctness of the order pasted in WP No. 6984/2006 dated 4.9.2008 is called in question in this appeal. The questions that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:

(2.) ON account of the removal, of the appellant by the National Stock Exchange Board of India due to non -payment of income tax dues for which car of the appellant was attached and based on the expulsion order of the National Stock Exchange Board of India R -1 has also expelled him from the membership, In the circumstances, appellant filed writ petition to quash the norms relating to multiple stock exchange dated 12.8A9P1 and the expulsion order passed by R -1 as per Atnexure -Q dated 30.12.2003 and consequently to restore the membership of the appellant or in the alternative to direct R -1 to refund a sum of Rs.30,10,250/ - which was collected by R -1 at the time of enrolling the appellant as its member. Learned single Judge after hearing the matter dismissed the writ petition relying upon the judgment of Divizion Bench of this court in C.R. Gopalaswamy v. Union Of India And Others ( 2000 (3) K.L.J. 1). Therefore, present appeal is filed.

(3.) SO far as Annexure -Q is concerned, admittedly a show cause notice was issued by R -1 to the appellant. Appellant has also sent a reply. Thereafter an order is passed. In such circumstances, whether the appellant has a right of hearing. When the Regulation clearly envisages for removal of membership of the appellant automatically on account of the expulsion of him by any one of the Board of Exchanges, there was no necessity for R -1 to give a right of audience before passing the impugned order as per Annexure -Q where R -1 has considered the reply of the appellant. Accordingly, we cannot find fault with the order of expulsion passed by R -1.