Challenged order for default, dismissed due to delay. Upheld for timely action to protect rights.

The appellants challenged the order declaring them defaulters, alleging violations of natural justice and arbitrariness. The High Court dismissed their writ petition due to delay and laches, as the appellants were aware of their status but delayed seeking legal recourse. The Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal matters to protect rights. The appeal was ultimately dismissed for lacking merit, with no costs awarded, underscoring the significance of prompt legal action in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of order declaring appellants as defaulters, violation of rules of natural justice, legality of decision to declare defaulters, rejection of application for readmission, delay and laches in filing writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The appellants challenged the order declaring them as defaulters by the Respondent No. 1, arguing that it violated the rules of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to explain or provided with reasons. They also contended that the decision was arbitrary and unjustified, with malice on the part of the Executive Director. The High Court dismissed the writ petition based on delay and laches. The Respondent No. 1 defended the decision, stating that the appellants were not in compliance with the rules and bye-laws of the stock exchange.

2. The background leading to the action against the appellants included fraudulent withdrawal of funds, financial difficulties, suspension from the stock exchange, and subsequent investigation by a committee. The Governing Board authorized the declaration of the appellants as defaulters based on the committee's report. Despite several representations and correspondence, the appellants filed the writ petition after a significant delay, during which third-party rights were created through the sale of membership.

3. The Court noted that the appellants were aware of their defaulter status since March 1987 but filed the writ petition only in October 1990. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition on grounds of delay and laches was deemed justified, especially considering the creation of third-party rights. The Court rejected the appellants' claims of malice and the decision being void ab initio, emphasizing the lack of justification for the delay in seeking legal recourse.

4. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, with no order as to costs. The Court upheld the High Court's decision based on the delay and laches in filing the writ petition, highlighting the importance of timely legal action in such matters. The judgment emphasized the need for parties to act promptly to protect their rights and interests in legal proceedings.

---