Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ESSEL SECURITIES LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusTHE CUSTODIAN AND ORS.

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Essel Securities Ltd filed a miscellaneous application before the Special Court (Securities) but failed to appear on the hearing date and had also been absent on previous dates. The Court noted that the applicant appeared to have lost interest in prosecuting the application. Consequently, the Court considered whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Relying on procedural rules that require active prosecution of applications, the Court dismissed the application. The dismissal was entered as the applicant did not pursue the matter.

Issues considered

  • Whether the miscellaneous application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant's non‑appearance?

Subjects

  • miscellaneous application
  • want of prosecution
  • dismissal
  • Special Court (Securities)
  • procedural default
  • non‑appearance

Judgment

           Digitally signed
           by SWAROOP
SWAROOP SHARAD
        PHADKE
SHARAD
PHADKE
        Date:
        2026.08.25
                                                                                 1 spma 28 of 2025.doc
           10:33:33
           +0530




                                           IN THE SPECIAL COURT
                              (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS
                                          IN SECURITIES) ACT, 1992

                                      MISC. APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2025

      Essel Securities Ltd.                                           …     Applicant
            versus
      The Custodian and Anr.                                          …     Respondents

      None for Applicant.
      Mr. Gandhar Raikar with Ms. Shilpa Bhate (through VC) with Ms. Payal
      Mehta, for Respondent No.1.
      Mr. Siddhant Marathe i/by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co., for
      Respondent No.2.

                                     CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.
                                                 JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT

                                     DATE :      21 AUGUST 2026

      P.C.

      1.                 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

      2.                 None present for the Applicant.

      3.                 None appeared for the Applicant on the previous dates as well and,

      therefore, the matter came to be posted today for dismissal order. It appears

      that the Applicant has lost interest in prosecuting this Application.

      4.                 Misc. Application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.



                                                                      ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




      SSP                                                             1/1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.