[1] IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.395 OF 2009 IN SUIT {LODGING} NO.502 OF 2009 Networth Stock Broking Ltd. & 2 Ors. .... Plaintiffs Vs. Mukesh Konde & Ors. .... Defendants And Mrs. Hetal Rajesh Patel .... Applicant Sarvasri Shyam Mehta i/b Ajay Tripathi for the Applicant in support of the Ch/S. Sarvasri D.V. Merchant, Senior Counsel, with Dilip Rai i/b A.V. Bedekar and Ms Aruna Singh for the Respondents/original Plaintiffs. Ms Poornima Advani i/b M/s. The Law Point for the Defendant No.5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SHRI A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: MARCH 31, 2009 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The main grievance of the plaintiffs is against the defendant Nos.1 to 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that these defendants initially earned credibility by their legitimate transactions as clients and suddenly they (defendant Nos.1 to 4) bought shares of the suit scrip (RTS Power) and on 11-2-2009 they vanished without settling the dues. The plaintiffs being the brokers were required to pay the dues (the price of the shares purchased by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 during that day). The plaintiffs then realised that [2] there was probably a systematic rigging of the price of the suit scrip which was going on for sometime on 11-2-2009. They even made a complaint about this to the police as well as to the defendant No.5 and also to SEBI. The plaintiffs have also stated in para 15 of the plaint that the defendant No.5 had assured them that the brokers would not part with monies to their clients. In other words, the plaintiffs before filing of the suit got assurance that the amounts they had paid would not be further paid to the sellers of the scrip. Despite of all this, on 18-2-2009 the plaintiffs secured a statement made by the defendant No.5’s counsel that the defendant No.5 would take necessary steps including blocking of funds. 2. The applicant in the chamber summons is directly affected because of the decision of the defendant No.5 not to cause disbursement of funds to the sellers of the suit scrip and so she is rightly seeking to become a party to the suit. She indeed is proper party to the suit. 3. There is one more reason why she should be a party to this suit. The plaintiffs have alleged that a systematic rigging of the price of this particular scrip went on for quite sometime prior to 11-2-2009. The plaintiffs suggested that some parties who had large [3] quantities of the suit scrips got benefited due to the rigging and they could sell their stock due to sudden splurge in the transactions and increase in the price. The applicant herein is one of such parties who could sell off large amount of shares of the suit scrip. In a way there is an insinuation against the applicant suggesting that she was part of fraud. Since the plaintiffs are seeking annulment of the transaction in question, the applicant is not only proper but a necessary party to the suit. I am also told across the bar that the applicant is filing an appeal against the decision of the defendant No.5 for stopping of pay-outs under the provisions of Section 23L of the Securities, Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956. 4. Hence the chamber summons is allowed. The plaintiffs shall add the applicant as party-defendant and cause amendment to the plaint. They shall also serve the amended copies of the plaint on the defendants. As far as the ad-interim relief is concerned, I think in view of the statement made by the defendant No.5 in para 9 of the affidavit dated 27-2-2009 and which statement is accepted by the Court, I need not pass any order on the plaintiffs’ application nor should I specifically record any statement through the counsel of the defendant No.5. The acceptance of the statement of the defendant No.5 by this Court shall [4] not affect their right in the appeal that is likely to be filed by the applicant in the near future under the Securities, Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956. The chamber summons accordingly stands disposed of. 5. After the order was passed, a person claiming himself to be the defendant No.5 appeared before the Court and said that he wanted to make submissions in the matter. Since the order I passed today is not going to directly affect him, I advised him to engage an Advocate and cause his appearance. (A.V. Nirgude, J.) ss/M9cs395.9 ss/M9cs395.9 ss/M9cs395.9