Petitioners are aggrieved by freezing of their Demat accounts on the ground of "statutory order".

This case involves petitioners aggrieved by the freezing of their Demat accounts, allegedly based on a 'statutory order'. The petitioners argue that the entity freezing the accounts is not a statutory authority and lacks the power to do so. Furthermore, they claim no such statutory order for freezing exists. Respondent No. 5, however, raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioners had previously appealed a similar matter to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed, thus preventing them from re-agitating the same grievances.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.866 OF 2021

Swojas Energy Foods Ltd. and ors. ... Petitioners

V/s.

Securities and Exchange Board of India
and ors. ... Respondents

Mr.Yeshwanth Shenoy alongwith Mr.Mangesh Mandal i/by
Mr.B.K.Rai, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Ms.Nidhi Singh alongwith Ms.Kinjal Bhatt i/by M/s Vidhi Partners,
Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Sham Walve, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr.J.B.Mishra alongwith Mr.L.P.Sawant, Advocates for Respondent
No.3.
Mr.Pesi Modi, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr.Anubhav Ghosh and
Mr.Ravishekhar Pandey i/by M/s The Law Point, Advocates for
Respondent No.5.
Ms.Shilpa Nair i/by M/s Veritas Legal, Advocate for Respondent
No.6.
Mr.Pulkit Sukhramani i/by M/s J. Sagar Associates, Advocate for
Respondent No.7.

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2021.

P.C.:-

Heard Mr.Shenoy, learned counsel for the petitioners;Ms.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.Walve, learnedstanding counsel, revenue for respondent No.2; Mr.J.B.Mishra,learned counsel for respondent No.3; and Mr.Modi, learned senior counsel alongwith Mr.Anubhav Ghosh, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. Though a number of prayers have been made by thepetitioners, the principal grievance of the petitioner washighlighted in our order dated 27th January, 2021, when we hadissued notice. Relevant portion of the order dated 27th January, 2021 reads as under:-

"2. Petitioners are aggrieved by freezing of their demataccounts by respondent No.5 on the ground of "statutory order". Learned counsel for the petitionerssubmits that firstly respondent No.5 is not a statutoryauthority. Therefore, it has got no power for freezing ofdemat accounts. Secondly, there is no such order by any statutory authority for freezing of the demataccounts of the petitioners. Impugned action of respondent No.5 is therefore wholly without jurisdictionbesides being unjust and unfair causing substantial loss to the petitioners."

3. Today when the matter is called upon, Mr.Modi, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has raised a preliminary objection contending that against the order dated 6th January, 2020 passedby the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in the appeal of thepetitioners against freezing of its demat accounts, petitionershad filed statutory appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.2191 of 2020 which was however dismissed by theSupreme Court on 15th October, 2020. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the same set of grievances in the present writ petition.

To know more in details find the attachment file