LexVIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. versus SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 1
VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.
v.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
(Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2005)
JANUARY 13, 2015
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
A
B
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - c
s.15Z (as amended by the Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Amendment) Act, 2002 and given effect from
29.10.2002) - Second appeal- Second appellate remedy
(pre-amendment) was before High Court on the questions
of facts as well as Jaw - Post-amendment the remedy was D
altered to before Supreme Court on the question of law
alone -
Second appeals filed before High Court -
Maintainability of, in view of amendment of s. 15Z - High
Court held that the appeals filed before 29.10.2002 (before
coming into force· of amended s. 15Z) were maintainable E
while those filed after 29.10.2002 (after coming into force
of amended s. 15Z) were not maintainable - On appeal,
held: The right of appeal being a vested right, the appellate
package as was available at the commencement of the
proceedings would continue to vest in the parties to a lis
F
till an eventual culmination of proceedings - Such vested
substantive right can be taken away by an amendment only
when the amending provision so provides - Failing which
such vested substantive right can be availed of irrespective
of the law which prevails at the date when the impugned G
order is passed or the date when appeal is preferred - The
scope of s. 15Z was varied by amendment thereof, and
. therefore it was not a mere change of forum -
The
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
A amendment having restricted the scope of s. 15Z to only
question of law, adversely affected the appellate right
vested, of the concerned litigant - Since the remedy of
second appeal vested in the respondent has not been
preserved, in the same format as it was available to the
B respondent, at the time of initiation of the lis between the
parties; and since the scope of the appellate remedy has
been diminished by the amendment, amendment to Section
15Z adversely affected the respondent, of a vested
substantive appellate right, as was available to the
C ·respondent, at the commencement of the lis or dispute
between the rival parties - Therefore, the appellate remedy
available to the respondent prior to the amendment of s. 15Z
must continue to be available to the respondent, despite
0
the amendment - The general principle is, that a law which
brought about a change in the forum, would not affect
pending actions, unless the intention to the contrary was
clearly shown - In view of the mandate contained in s. 6(c)
and (e) of the General Clauses Act also the amendment of
E . a statute, which is not retrospective in operation, does not
affect pending proceedings, except where the amending
~. provision expressly or by necessary intendment provides
otherwise - Pending proceedings are to continue as if the
unamended provision is still in force - All the appeals
F preferred by the Board, before the High Court, were
maintainable in law - In exercise of jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution it is directed that the instant order
would govern all the cases which were disposed of by the
G
H
High Court through the impugned order.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A right of appeal can be availed of only
when it is expressly conferred. When such a right is
conferred, its parameters are also laid down. A right of
VIDEOCON INTERNATIO~AL LTD. v. SEBI
3
f
appeal may be absolute, or it may be a limited right. A
Under the unamended Section 15Z of Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 the appellate remedy
to the High Court, against an order passed by the
· Securities Appellate Tribunal, was circumscribed by the
words " ... on any question of fact or law arisigg out of B
such order." The amended Section 15Z, while altering
the appellate forum from the High Court to the Supreme
Court, curtailed and restricted the scope of the appeal,
against an ·Order passed by the Securities Appellate
T~ibunal, by expressing that the remedy could be C
availed of" ... on any question of law arising out of such
order." It is, therefore apparent, that the right to appeal,
is available in different packages, and that, the
amendment to Section 15Z, varied the scope of the
second appeal provided under the Securities and D
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. [para 25] {55-C-G]
2. What falls withiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.