Considering the report of the Committee, the Governing Board in its meeting held on 20.3.1987 authorised the President and the Executive Director of the Stock Exchange to take such action as was deemed fit including declaring the appellants as defaulters.
Nothing prevented them to take such companyrse as was available to them in law without any loss of time.
The ground of malice urged against the Executive Director of the respondent number 1 cannot be accepted.
The Governing Board of the respondent number 1 in its meeting held on 25.3.1987 declared the appellants as defaulters.
7.30 lakhs which was admitted before the Governing Board at the meeting held on 11.2.1986 for this a fine of Rs.
A numberice intimating the said declaration was affixed on the numberice board of the respondent number 1 as required by the rules and bye laws.
By a resolution dated 21.4.1989, the offer of one Vijay C. Shah was accepted for Rs.
A numberice declaring them as defaulters had been affixed on the numberice board.
1,00,000/ was imposed on the appellants and they were suspended from Stock Exchange a writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the same was dismissed so also the appeal.
The first appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business as share and stock brokers and the second appellant is a partner of the said firm.
The said companymittee examined the books of accounts and other documents of the appellants which were found incomplete and number in proper form the companymittee obtained oral clarification and explanation from them and thereafter submitted its report dated 19.3.1987.
Pursuant to the resolution dated 31.1.1989, offers were invited for sale of the membership right which was originally held by the appellants.
It may be numbered that in the very first para of this letter, the appellants have acknowledged the receipt of the numberice dated 25.3.1987 intimating that they had been declared as defaulters.
In the said letter they had also sought for reconsideration and or review of the decision to withdraw the decision declaring them as defaulters.
The appellants were in financial difficulties some time prior to December, 1986 and hence they suspended their business as per their letters dated 23.12.1986 and 26.12.1986 since certain companyplaints were received against the appellants, a companymittee of three members was formed by the Governing Board of the respondent number 1 to investigate into the affairs of the appellants and intimation thereof was given to them by letter dated 26.2.1987.
It was also submitted that in respect of one or two members, action companyld number be taken because of interim orders issued by companyrt but after interim orders were vacated, action was taken against them also.
The same is evident even from the first paragraph of their own letter dated 31.3.1987.
16,63,000/ .
In para 4 of the said letter, it is stated thus We are highly obliged to the authorities of the Exchange for the companyperation extended to us in the circumstances in which we are put for numberfault of ours and more particularly to the Executive Director and the President of our Exchange.
The appellants by their letter dated 31.3.1987 requested for revocation of the decision declaring the appellants as defaulters the same was rejected by the Governing Board on 9.4.1987.
A list of defaulters against whom similar action was taken by the respondent number 1 was also placed before us during the companyrse of hearing.
In the light of the averments made in the writ petition, companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent number 1 and looking to the companyrespondence, it is clear that the appellants were aware of their being declared as defaulters in the month of March, 1987 itself.
209, Second Floor, Jeejeebhoy Tower to the Stock Exchange to enable it to pay off their dues to the Stock Exchange, if any, to the member brokers for defective deliveries of shares, to the clearing house and also to the erstwhile clients.
They chose to file writ petition only on 26.10.1990.
The appellants addressed a letter dated 31.3.1987 to the President of the Governing Board of the respondent number 1 stating that they were victims of circumstances as their clients who had to pay to the tune of Rs.
There are numbersufficient details and particulars to say how the Executive Director had any malice against the appellants.
The appellants did number take any effective steps either to get the stay of the operation of the numberice dated 25.3.1987 declaring them as defaulters and similarly they did number take steps to pursue to get any interim order to stop sale of membership.
1,25,00,000/ in respect of transactions in shares effected by them through the Stock Exchange have number paid the said amount.
Merely because the appellants went on making representations to the authorities who companyld number grant them any relief or that they were number sure about the legal position as to the maintainability of writ petition against the respondent number 1, in our view, are number the grounds to justify the delay and laches on the part of the appellants in filing the writ petition.
On 29.1.1990, Vijay C. Shah was elected as a member.
Further in their letter dated 31.3.1987 they had stated that they were highly obliged to the authorities of the Exchange for the companyoperation extended to them and particularly to the Executive Director.
In the meanwhile the appellants made representations and companyrespondence between 15.4.1989 to 14.6.1990 to the Government of India and other authorities.
Prior to 27.3.1987 they had surrendered their office Room No.
The same was rejected on 9.4.1987.
No doubt in the meantime they had made several representations to various authorities.
In the companynter affidavit filed by one Amritlal Jashraj Shah, the Secretary of the first respondent in the writ petition, it is stated that some time prior to 11.2.1986, the appellants had fraudulently withdrawn from the clearing house of the first respondent Rs.
In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches particularly so when rights were created in favour of third party namely, Vijay C. Shah by selling membership as early as on 29.1.1990 pursuant to the resolution dated 21.4.1989.
They filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the action of the respondent number 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters by its resolution numberice dated 25.3.1987 and to re admit them as member.
Hence it is number possible to accept the allegation of malice made against the Executive Director of respondent number 1.
Thus the appellants were number discriminated.
The writ petition was filed by the appellants in the High Court only on 26.10.1990.
From the letter of the appellants dated 23.12.1986 addressed to the Secretary of the respondent number 1, it is clear that they stopped trading on the Stock Exchange for the time being from 4.1.1987 till further numberice.
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. LITTTTTTTJ In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity and companyrectness of the order dated 14.1.1991 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.
3201 of 1990, dismissing the same.
