AMIT BANSAL Vs. DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .J (ORAL).

(2.) RULE. With the consent of the parties, writ Petitioner's grievance is against respondent No.2, who was the stock broker of the petitioner and his late father. Petitioner claims that due to illness of his father, respondent No.2 indulged in fraudulent transaction pertaining to the petitioner's shares and manipulated the bills, resulting in a loss of Rs.5,95,699/- to him. Petitioner had filed complaint (Annexure-A) with respondent Nos.1 and 3, clearly stating his claims and instances of manipulation etc. Respondent No.3/SEBI had directed respondent No.1 to look into and resolve the complaint of the petitioner and called upon respondent No.1 to give a status report. Petitioner gave the clarification, as sought by respondent No.1. However, it is the petitioner's case that respondent No.1 has been delaying and dithering in the matter. Respondent No.1 in its counter affidavit has explained that it was not a routine complaint. The complaint contains the allegations of forgery, fabrication of records, cheating, mis-appropriation of funds etc. The transaction between the parties were at times on telephone and all contract notes were not available. Petitioner was advised to refer the matter to arbitration also. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that after investigation, a report dated 8.1.2002 has been prepared for Board of Directions. The report primarily accepts the contention of the petitioner. It is stated by counsel for respondent No.l that the report prepared prima facie supports and is almost in favour of the petitioner. However, there is a supervening event, which has taken place i.e. the unfortunate demise of the proprietor of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that the wife of respondent No.2 has applied for substitution and the same has been recommended for approval to the SEBI. Learned counsel submits that further action would be taken after substitution is allowed by the SEBI. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that within a period of three months from today, the service department of the stock exchange will process the report and finalise the same. Learned counsel further submits that copy of the report would also be supplied to the petitioner. It would then be for the petitioner to take such advantage of the report, as available at law. Learned counsel submits that respondent would also inform the petitioner as soon as substitution is allowed and the stock exchange ticket is transferred in the name of wife of respondent No.2, so that petitioner may take such steps as he wants to safeguards his interest.