Court clarified the usage of disclosed material in ongoing litigation, ensuring confidentiality and limiting use to current proceedings.

O R D E R

1. These miscellaneous applications are at the instance of the original respondent No.1 in Special Leave Petition (C)D.No.45529 of 2023 seeking clarification as under:-

“a. Clarify that the Subject Order i.e. the order dated 6th November 2023, dismissing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 45529 of 2023 does not preclude the Applicants from referring to or relying on the Subject Documents in other proceedings or actions against SEBI, BNL and the seven persons/entities charged as being BNL's undisclosed promoters;

b. Pass any other/ further orders and directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fair and necessary in the facts and circumstances.”

2. In view of the common order dated 10.01.2025 passed by this Court in the aforesaid MAs the Registrar raised objection as regards the maintainability of the present miscellaneous applications.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to look into the miscellaneous applications and would like to dispose them of with some clarification. However, before we proceed to do so, we must give some idea about the proceedings that came up before us in the past.

4. To put it briefly, the applicants before us are shareholders of a company by name “Bharat Nidhi Limited”. They have some serious grievance against the functioning of the company.

5. They filed writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay seeking certain reliefs. In the said writ petitions a common interlocutory order was passed, directing the SEBI to part with some documents. The original company as well as SEBI being aggrieved by such directions came before this Court by way of SLP (C)D.No.45770/2023 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 06.11.2023 in the following terms:-

1. Mr C A Sundaram, senior counsel, states that all material which is directed to be disclosed by the High Court shall be used only for the purpose of the proceedings pending before the High Court and shall not be disseminated to any third party.

2. Since the impugned orders of the High Court are purely of an interlocutory nature, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. However, the parties would be at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law on all counts after the final judgment of the High Court.

4. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

5 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

6. Thus, this Court recorded the statement of Mr. Sundaram that the material would be used only for the purpose of the proceedings pending before the High Court and shall not be disseminated to any third party.

7. After the aforesaid order came to be passed by this Court, the main mater i.e. writ petition(s) before the Bombay High Court came to be finally heard and disposed of.

8. The operative part of the common order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 530 of 2023 reads thus:-

“(I)The petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the order dated 23 October 2023 as confirmed by the Supreme Court, by rejection of the Special Leave Petitions of respondent Nos.2 and 9 and thereafter, by rejection of the Special Leave Petition filed by the SEBI.

(II) The order dated 23 October 2023 passed by this Court, be forthwith complied by SEBI.

(III) All the contentions of the petitioners and of the respondents on issues in regard to prayer clauses (c) and (d) are expressly kept open to be agitated at appropriate time in appropriate proceedings.

(IV) The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

No costs.”

9. The aforesaid final order passed by the High Court came to be challenged before this Court by way of SLP(C) Nos. 26890-26891 of 2023. These SLPs came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2023.

The order reads thus:-

“1 When the interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was questioned before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Special Leave Petition which was filed initially by the promoter was dismissed. The o