TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd., the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., Mumbai and the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange Ltd. The appellants are shareholders of the company and they hold very small number of shares each. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) ordered investigations into the trading in the scrip of the company and pending investigations, it issued directions among others, to the JALCO Group of companies and its associate entities including Respondents No. 2 to 5 and its associate entities restraining them from buying, selling or dealing in the shares of the company directly or indirectly. This order was an ex-parte order passed on April 25, 2007 under Sections 11(4) and 11B of the Act. Respondents No. 2 to 5 alongwith others were subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od by courts and tribunals. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 578, the learned judges of the Supreme Court were examining the question of locus standi of the appellants therein and laid down tests to distinguish between persons aggrieved and strangers and busy body of meddlesome interlopers. Persons in the last category were said to be those who interfere in things which do not concern them and act in the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. The learned judges further observed that the distinction between persons aggrieved and strangers was real and laid down the following broad tests in this regard: Whether the applicant is a person whose legal ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions, the Board felt that some of the delinquent entities like Respondents No. 2 to 5 ought to be restrained from accessing the capital market till such time the investigations are over and subsequently on the completion of the investigations it was of the view that adjudication proceedings should be initiated against them. The Board was fully justified in taking such a view keeping in view the facts as they emerged from the investigations. The appellants cannot be allowed to interfere with such regulatory matters which is the function and duty of the Board and fall within its exclusive domain. They cannot be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order by which the earlier directions restraining Respondents No. 2 to 5 from accessing the sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncil of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC 702 to contend that the words "person aggrieved" should be given a wide meaning so as to entitle the appellants to maintain the present appeal. We have carefully gone through this judgment and find that it does not advance the case of the appellants. Their Lordships observed that the meaning of the words "person aggrieved" vary according to the context of the statute and in the background of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality, the aforesaid words must get a liberal interpretation. In that case the learned judges were dealing with the Advocates Act, 1961 wherein the role of the Bar Council was compared ....