Shareholders have a right to access relevant documents in regulatory proceedings, emphasizing transparency and compliance by regulatory bodies.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. This interim application is filed by the applicants/original petitioners in the above writ petition, which was disposed of by our orders dated 01 December, 2023. The prayers in this application are inter alia that this Court should restore the disposed of petition to its file, and hear the same finally. We note the prayers as made in the present application which read thus:-

“a. Restore Writ Petition No. 530 of 2022 of the files of this Hon’ble High Court, and proceed to hear the same finally;

b. Restrain BNL from taking any steps in pursuance of the Postal Ballot Notice dated September 22, 2022 (Exhibit B to the Writ Petition) and the Follow Up Announcement dated December 09, 2023 (Exhibit C to this Application);

c. Direct BNL to disclose by way of an affidavit all actions and steps taken in pursuance of the Postal Ballot Notice dated September 22, 2022 (Exhibit B to the Writ Petition) and the Follow Up Announcement dated December 09, 2023 (Exhibit C to this Application);

d. Grant interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b).”

2. For convenience, parties are referred as they stand in the original proceedings.

3. The petitioners are minority shareholders of respondent no.2-Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (for short, “BNL”). They had made various complaints to respondent no.1-Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short, “SEBI”) on violation by BNL of various provisions of securities laws, including violations pertaining to the Minimum Public Sharing Norms (MPS) as also serious violations in respect of the promoter’s disclosure in the BNL’s shareholdings. In the writ petition, the petitioners contended that the complaints as made by the petitioners were subject matter of investigation by SEBI. The petitioners also contended that neither the investigation report nor the relevant documents as demanded by them, were supplied to the petitioners by SEBI, despite the admitted fact that the petitioners were shareholders of the BNL.

4. The case of the petitioners was also to the effect that SEBI had investigated the complaints as made by the petitioners and in pursuance of an investigation report, not disclosed to the petitioners, SEBI had issued show cause notices inter alia to respondent no.2-BNL. Respondent nos.3 to 9 are the other shareholders of BNL, who are stated to be the majority shareholders. According to the petitioners, they are involved in perpetuating several illegalities in BNL, violating the securities laws and regulations. The petitioners contended that a copy of the show cause notice was also not furnished to the petitioners.

5. The assertion of the petitioners was also that SEBI, at the behest of respondent nos. 2 to 9, was making a farce of proceedings against respondent nos.2 to 9 and in reality, no action whatsoever was taken although such violation by respondent nos.2 to 9 was quite gross.

6. One of the significant contentions as urged by the petitioners was that BNL was earlier listed on the Delhi Stock Exchange and after the said stock exchange ceased to be functional, BNL had sought listing of its shares at the Calcutta Stock Exchange, which was also not functional. In these circumstances, BNL was stated to be on the Dissemination Board of the National Stock Exchange. The petitioners, hence, contended that there was a severe prejudice caused to the petitioners due to several illegalities committed by the BNL, at the instance of the majority shareholders who are respondent Nos.3 to 9 and that the petitioners were the victims of BNL not being listed on a recognized stock exchange, which had severely affected their interest as investors in BNL and more particularly on the illegal and unrealistic pricing of the shares held by them in BNL.

7. The petitioners have also contended that BNL was a majority shareholder of a reputed company known as Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (for short ‘