ITEM NO. 11                                                                          COURT NO. 4                                                                                     SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO (s).  1685 OF 2005

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appellant (s)

VERSUS

MANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE  Respondent (s)

(With appln (s) for ex-Parte stay)

Date: 01/04/2005  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMA PAL

 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR

For Appellant (s) Mr. G. E. Vahanwati, SG

 Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Adv.

 Mr. Pradeep Kr.Singh, Adv.

 Ms. Sheenam Parwanda, Adv.

 Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv.

For Respondent (s) Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv.

 Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, Adv.

 Ms. Suchitra A. Chitale, Adv.

 Mr. Ray Vikram Nath, Adv.

 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The appeal is disposed of but without any order as to costs.

Usha Bhardwaj (Shelly S. Gupta)

P. S. To Registrar COURT MASTER

Signed order is placed on the file.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1685 OF 2005

Securities & Exchange Board of India .. Appellant (s)

 Versus

Mangalore Stock Exchange  .. Respondent (s)

O R D E R

The respondent caveator is present. The appeal is admitted. Formal service of the notice is dispensed with.

The primary question which has been raised in this appeal is whether the appeal is maintainable before the Securities Appellate Tribunal under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 against the order passed by the Board under Section 4(4) of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. It appears that the Tribunal has already passed an interim order on 20^th September, 2004. The issue as to the maintainability of the appeal was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal and noted on 22^th November, 2004. Despite this, the Tribunal has passed an order on 20^th January, 2005, directing the appellant to consider the application made by the respondent for corporatisation and demutualisation de hors the order passed by the Board under Section 4(4) of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 20^th January, 2005 this appeal has been preferred. We are of the view that once the Tribunal had noted that the appeal had been challenged as not being maintainable, it should dispose of the issue of maintainability first before passing any further order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 20^th January, 2005 is stayed until the Tribunal disposes of the issue of maintainability. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the issue as early as is conveniently possible, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from date.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of but without any order as to costs.

 J(RUMAPAL)

 J (ARUN KUMAR)

NEW DELHI,

APRIL 01, 2005.