Interim stay and certified-copy access in securities restraint proceedings pending final hearing and proper service of the operative order.

The Tribunal considered whether an interim stay was warranted against a restraint order blocking access to the securities market and holding office in NDTV, noting that the loan agreements, the allegation of sham transactions, transfer of control, and possible securities law violations required detailed examination; it granted interim protection and stayed the order until the next hearing to preserve the existing position in the interests of shareholders and investors. It also held that, in adjudicatory proceedings, the affected party must be supplied the operative order, and that website upload alone is insufficient; SEBI was directed to furnish a certified copy on application within five working days.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order restraining the appellants from accessing the securities market and from holding office in NDTV required interim stay pending hearing; (ii) Whether SEBI was bound to supply a certified copy of the impugned order to the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order restraining the appellants from accessing the securities market and from holding office in NDTV required interim stay pending hearing.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded that the nature of the loan agreements, the allegation that they were sham transactions, the question whether control of NDTV had passed to VCPL, and the alleged violations of the securities law framework required detailed consideration. At the stage of admission, the Tribunal found that keeping the listed company without its existing management would not be in the interest of shareholders or investors. The Tribunal therefore considered interim protection necessary pending final hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was stayed till the next date of hearing, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether SEBI was bound to supply a certified copy of the impugned order to the appellants.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that in an adjudicatory proceeding, the aggrieved party must be supplied the order that affects it, and that mere upload on the website does not discharge that duty. It directed that if the appellants applied for a certified copy, SEBI was to furnish it within five working days.

Conclusion: SEBI was directed to supply the certified copy on application, in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted against enforcement of the impugned restraint order, and SEBI was directed to provide the appellants with a certified copy of that order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the operative effect of a securities regulator's order may cause immediate prejudice before final adjudication, interim stay may be granted on prima facie consideration and the need to preserve the existing position pending final hearing.

---