OD-3 ORDER SHEET APO/4/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE DALMIA SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED AND ANR BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY Date : February 18, 2026.

Appearance:

Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shaunak Mitra Adv.

Ms. Nandini Khaitan, Adv.

Mr. Pratik Shanu, Adv.

Mr. Mehul Bachhawat, Adv.

Mr. Naman Chowdhury, Adv.

..for the appellant Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayan Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal, Adv.

Ms. Udita Mandal, Adv.

…for the respondent no.1 The Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd.

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Susanta Kumar Dutt, Adv. Mr. Syamantak Banerjee, Adv.

…for SEBI Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

The Court: This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 9, 2026, whereby the appellant’s writ petition being WPO No.305 of 2022 was disposed of by a Learned Judge of this Court along with IA No. GA/1/2022 being an application filed by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition.

The material facts of the case appear to be that the appellant/writ petitioner is a member of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Limited. As per the applicable Rules, it had to keep deposited certain sums of money with the Stock Exchange. The appellant wanted to give up its membership. According to the appellant, the Stock Exchange was procrastinating over the matter. The appellant requested the Stock Exchange to retain the minimum requisite security deposit and refund to it the balance amount. The Stock Exchange did not do so.

In the aforesaid factual scenario, the appellant approached a Learned Judge of this Court by filing WPO/305/2022.

Before the Learned Single Judge, the Stock Exchange submitted that an investigation had been started against the writ petitioner and until the same was completed and liability, if any, of the writ petitioner was ascertained, nothing could be refunded to the writ petitioner. By a judgment and order dated February 2, 2022, the Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by, in effect, directing the Stock Exchange to complete the investigation against the writ petitioner and take further steps depending on the result of the investigation. If the investigation concluded in favour of the writ petitioner, naturally the entire deposit would have to be refunded to it. If the investigation fixed some liability on the writ petitioner, then after adjusting that amount, the balance had to be refunded to the writ petitioner.

That order of the Learned Single Judge was carried in appeal by the writ petitioner being APO/25/2022. By a judgment and order dated March 29, 2022, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge on the following terms:

“5. The plea of the respondent is that the investigation and inspection of the books of accounts and record of the appellant is required to be done in connection with a fraud, hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the writ petition has been disposed of without calling affidavit from the respondent. Heavy reliance has been placed by the appellant on the communication dated 30th April, 2013 sent by the respondent No.1 to the appellant to the effect that the surrender of membership will be proceeded after legal case is settled. Similar communications dated 17th June, 2013 and 18th June, 2013 were sent. Respondent vide communication dated 19th September, 2013 was informed about the withdrawal of the pending Miscellaneous Case No.581 of 2011 arising out of Title Suit No.60 of 2004. Hence, the plea of the appellant that respondents are bound by their own earlier restrained needs to be examined. Therefore, we set aside the order under challenge, and request the learned Single Judge to decide the issue afresh.