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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...