TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordance with law, by passing a reasonable and speaking order, within a reasonable time period that may be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner has alleged that the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd (in short NSE) is having two main objectives, viz. (i) Scientific, Efficient and Transparent price discovery; and (ii) Equal access opportunities to all market participants. While so, it is alleged that some officials of NSE have conspired with Software Vendor and OPG Securities by running illegal co-location service, which led to manipulative price discovery and preferential access opportunities to few brokers. 3. According to the petitioner, this has not only resulted in the monetary loss to NSE, but also shattered the public confidence.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner that NSE had once again tried to sabotage the regulatory enforcement action by SEBI as the second attempt. However, NSE had refuted the findings of the report to SEBI. Petitioner has further alleged that there was one more attempt by the then Managing Director of NSE to sabotage the regulatory enforcement action by SEBI. Thereafter, an independent professional entity was pressed into service to investigate the following: (a) Whether norms of fair access were breached; (b) Whether some brokers were unduly benefitted; and (c) If so, whether this was because of any collusion/misconduct by NSE employees. 6. The petitioner has further stated that the report of the independent entity had confirmed the wrong doing of the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has pointed out that the Central Government has passed an order in the case of NSEL scam constituting the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short SFIO) to investigate the matter under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the same power ought to be exercised in the present case as well. 10. As narrated in the petition, already a representation on the above mentioned matters to SEBI for action to be initiated under the SEBI Act and allied Securities laws, was given by the petitioner on 6.7.2018. As there was no response, he has filed a writ petition in W.P. No.19724 of 2018, which was later on withdrawn by the petitioner. Yet another representation to the respondents on 21.08.2018 was sent by the petitioner. The same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other brokers, who are trading in Tamil Nadu. 13. It is pointed out that the technological aspects of the architecture used for providing co-location services for the relevant period between 2010 - 2014 was "TCP/IPTick-By-Tick(TBT)" mechanism. The said TBT technology has been discontinued since 2014 and replaced with Multicast TBT (MTBT) by NSE. SEBI has never questioned the same at any point of time. The co-location services are statutorily permitted and the same is offered globally and in India. The SEBI has also conducted a detailed investigation in the matter and seven forensic reports from various agencies were filed with SEBI and the enquiry is in progress. Thus the petitioner has no right to compel an agency to investigate into the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as considered and a decision as deemed fit was also already taken. Being an intelligence organization, FIU-IND, cannot be required to divulge the details of action taken on the basis of individual's representation or complaint, as it may have severe repercussion in the outcome of investigations/actions by other investigative/law enforcement agencies. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also mentioned that the copy of the report was available with him and unless and otherwise the court wanted to see that, it will not be shared with anyone. 17. In the above background, the interest of the petitioner is only private and if the same is a public interest, the locus will be tested in a different way. The term dual test is whether the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing an independent appeal. From the above, it is evident that the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of. 20. The learned senior counsel Mr.P.S.Raman, appearing for the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd would contend that SEBI is a referring body for NSE, like Reserve Bank of India is for any banking and financial company. When the jurisdictional body is monitoring and having a check on the operation of NSE, it is not necessary or relevant to take action under Section 212 of the Companies Act. Already two independent bodies, namely SEBI and CBI have taken action and registered FIRs. SEBI is a sole regulatory body and the allegation of co-location scam is a brokerage related problem, the same has to be resolved....