The above writ petition came up for admission on 14.07.2009 and on being satisfied prima facie about the merits of the case, this Court admitted the writ petition and passed an order of interim injunction.

2. At the instance of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.S. Raman appearing for the 2nd respondent, the matter was listed on 21.07.2009 and the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner without disclosing that there is a statutory appeal available against the order of the 1st respondent under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and as per 46 of the Regulation, an appeal lies to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which is presided over by a retired Judge of the High Court and hence, the writ petition should not have been entertained.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent further submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merits as he has not filed any counter affidavit to vacate the stay granted by this Court and by virtue of the order of interim injunction granted by this Court, thousands of investors were affected and the 2nd respondent is not able to proceed with the acquisition of shares as per the public announcement and therefore, he confines his contention only to the availability of the statutory remedy, which is efficacious and hence, prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

4. Mr. AR.L. Sundresean, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, raised two preliminary objections that the writ has been admitted and rule nisi has been ordered and the Court on being satisfied prima facie, passed an order of injunction and hence, without calling for the records from the 1st respondent and without disclosing their defence, the 2nd respondent is not at all entitled to raise the plea of maintainability in the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the 2nd respondent has not filed the vakalat and hence, the 2nd respondent should not be heard. He further contended that the writ petition is against the order of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has not filed any counter affidavit and the other respondents have not come forward to vacate the injunction order and in such circumstances, in the absence of proper authorisation given by the 2nd respondent, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel should not be entertained.

6. Mr. P.S. Raman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, in reply submitted that the 2nd respondent has in fact sent the vakalat, but as the 2nd respondent is in Japan, the vakalat could not be attested in accordance with law and therefore, the same could not be filed in Court. He further submitted that even in the absence of vakalat, advocates on instruction are entitled to appear before this Court and after informing the Court that the advocates have undertaken to file vakalat, the Court can hear the matter and in this case, Mr.T.K.Baskaran and Mr.K.Govindarajan have undertaken to file vakalath on behalf of the 2nd respondent and hence, there is no legal bar to hear the 2nd respondent.

7. As regards, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, appearing for the petitioner that after the rule nisi has been issued and without calling for records, the Court should not proceed further, Mr.P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that he has only brought to the notice of the Court about the availability of alternative remedy, which is efficacious and statutorily provided and only on that ground, the writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, irrespective of the issuance of rule nisi, the Court can entertain the plea of the 2nd respondent.

8. Though, this Court admitted the writ petition and issued the rule nisi and also granted injunction, having regard to the nature of the plea that has been made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.