Smifs Securities Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....interim stay. by the impugned order the certificate of registration of the appellant has been suspended for a period of six months. apart from the fact that a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant, we are of the view that the balance of convenience requires that the operation of the impugned order be stayed. if the operation of the order is not stayed and the appeal were to be allowed subsequently the period of suspension may be over and the appellant in that event would suffer an irreparable loss. on the other hand, if the operation of the order was to be stayed and the appellant were to fail, no prejudice would be caused to either party as in that event the impugned order would operate from the date of the decision of the appeal. moreover, the so called dubious trades on the basis of which the certificate of registration of the appellant has been suspended were allegedly executed in the year 2000-01 and the appellant has been operating in the market since then. in this view of the matter, we direct that the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. liberty is given to the respondent to move for early hearing of the.....

Judgment:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issues involved in the appeal require a detailed consideration.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in regard to the prayer for interim stay. By the impugned order the certificate of registration of the appellant has been suspended for a period of six months. Apart from the fact that a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant, we are of the view that the balance of convenience requires that the operation of the impugned order be stayed. If the operation of the order is not stayed and the appeal were to be allowed subsequently the period of suspension may be over and the appellant in that event would suffer an irreparable loss. On the other hand, if the operation of the order was to be stayed and the appellant were to fail, no prejudice would be caused to either party as in that event the impugned order would operate from the date of the decision of the appeal. Moreover, the so called dubious trades on the basis of which the certificate of registration of the appellant has been suspended were allegedly executed in the year 2000-01 and the appellant has been operating in the market since then. In this view of the matter, we direct that the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Liberty is given to the respondent to move for early hearing of the appeal.