Skip to main content

Court imposes 50 lakh penalty on National Stock Exchange

In a significant judgment, a bench comprising of G.S. Patel, J dismissed an application for injunction in a defamation action brought by the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) for an article published in a financial news website. The article in question was based on a letter written by an anonymous whistleblower which alleged that that insiders at the stock exchange had given unfair advantage to certain high-frequency traders.
The Court noted that the journalist who wrote the article, had made repeated attempts to contact the NSE chairman and other NSE members before publishing the article but she had received no response. Instead the journalist and editor of the website were slapped with a 100 crore defamation suit and an injunction seeking removal of the articles.
Dismissing the injunction plea , the Court observed that defamation law is not to be used to gag, to silence, to suppress and to subjugate. The Court went on to say that  “the freedom of speech and expression is arguably the most volatile and the most sensitive to assault and the most precious. We forget that these freedoms have not come easily. They have not come cheap. They were hard won after years of sacrifice and toil and struggle. They have not been given. They have been forged. We surrender them at our peril”.
The Court further commented that it was fashionable these days to deride every section of the media as mere paparazzi but it is forgotten that none of the scams and the leaks of the past two decades would have been possible without journalists, editors, newspapers and television news anchors. The Court also observed that today all our institutions face the crisis of dwindling public confidence and that neither the NSE nor the judiciary were exceptions to this. Terming the actions taken by NSE to be gross abuse of the process of the Court, the Court imposed 50 lakh penalty on NSE of which 1.5 lakh each were to be paid to the journalist and the editor of the website and 47 lakhs to 2 Mumbai hospitals. National Stock Exchange of India vs. Moneylife Media Private Limited, decided on September 9, 2015

Article referred: http://sccblog.azurewebsites.net/post/2015/09/11/court-imposes-50-lakh-penalty-on-national-stock-exchange/

Comments

  1. Impressive!You’re doing a great job Man,Keep it up.
    Thank You for your information.kindly visit us
    Shriram Properties Ltd.
    NSE IPO
    NSEIL
    Indian startups

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even