SVPCL LIMITED Vs. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.27354 of 2008 is filed by M/s.SVPCL Limited and W.P.No.8471 of 2009 by its Directors for a mandamus to set aside notice in proceedings No.CFD/DIL/NB/NB/SCN/146318/2008, dated 02.12.2008, of respondent No.1.

(2.) THEY sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to desist from taking any coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned notice.Since the issues raised in both these writ petitions are identical, they are heard and are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.27354 of 2008. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Companies Act). Its authorised share capital is Rs.27.50 crore. Intending to raise its capital for expansion of its business operations, its Board of Directors passed a resolution on 23.02.2007 to raise capital by inviting subscriptions of 76,66,668 equity shares from the public by way of 100% voluntary book building process at a price band of Rs.40-45/-. The public issue was opened on 22.10.2007 and closed on 26.10.2007. In the public issue, BOB Capital Markets Limited was the book running lead manager and Standard Chartered Capital Markets Limited was the co-book running lead manager responsible for post-issue compliances. M/s.Aarthi Consultants (P) Limited was the Registrar to the issue. The prospectus issued by the petitioner named BSE and NSE as stock exchanges, wherein the proposed shares have to be listed. It has ultimately turned out that the efforts of the petitioner for listing its shares has become abortive with the BSE refusing to grant permission for such listing. The decision of the BSE was communicated to the petitioner vide letter, dated 21.01.2008. The petitioner unsuccessfully questioned the decision of the BSE in W.P.No.1061 of 2008. The petitioner was also unsuccessful in its effort to get the said decision reversed in the appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition in effect is in the nature of prohibition. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction for grant of writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory and the object of that writ is to restrain the Courts or inferior Tribunals from exercising the jurisdiction which they do not possess at all or else to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction (see Govinda Menon v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1274).