Securities Appellate Tribunal
C & C Constructions Ltd. vs BSE Limited & Another on 31 August 2026
IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT MUMBAI
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026.
CORAM: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
Appeal No. 136 of 2021
[Along with Misc. Application Nos. 1073 of 2024 and 1180 of
BETWEEN:
C & C Constructions Limited
Rep. by its Director Mr. Chandan Singh
Plot No. 70, Sector-32,
Gurgaon-122 001,HR
…Appellant
Ms. Dharmya M. S., Advocate for the Appellant.
AND
1. Bombay Stock Exchange
25th Floor, P.J. Towers, Dalal Street,
Mumbai- 400 021
2. National Stock Exchange of India Limited Exchange Plaza, C-1, Block G, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051, Maharashtra …Respondents
Ms. Zarnaab Aswad, Advocate with Mr. Aayush Pandey, Advocate i/b Khaitan & Co. for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rashid Boatwalla, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Kethineni, Advocate i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for Respondent No.
2.
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15T OF THE SEBI
ACT, 1992 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019
PASSED BY THE BSE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND THE TRIBUNAL
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Per: Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer (Oral)
We have heard Ms. Dharmya M.S., learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Zarnaab Aswad, learned advocate for the respondent-BSE Limited and Mr. Pranav Kethineni, learned advocate for NSEIL.
2. Admitted facts are, appellant-Company i.e. C & C Constructions Limited was under insolvency resolution process. The SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) fines levied by the respondent Exchanges pertain to the period when moratorium was in force.
3. Ms. Dharmya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant Company was sold on “as is where is” basis as a going concern. Both respondent Exchanges filed their claims in the insolvency resolution process and no proceeds have been received. This submission is not disputed by the learned advocates for the respondents.
4. Learned advocates for the respondents submitted that the appellant may file waiver applications and the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
5. Admitted position is, respondents filed their claims in the insolvency resolution process and no proceeds have been received and this factual matrix has attained finality. Resultantly, respondents’ claims have been rendered unenforceable. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the respondents suggesting the appellant to file waiver applications are superfluous.
6. In the circumstances, the demands raised by the respondent Exchanges are unsustainable and accordingly they are quashed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member
Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar Technical Member 31.08.2026 PK
PRERNA MANISH KHARE Digitally signed by PRERNA MANISH KHARE Date: 2026.09.03 14:44:17 +05'30'