G.SaravananSon of Mr. Ganapathy v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M DHANDAPANI
Outcome
Withdrawn
Recording the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
WP No. 9191 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01-04-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 9191 of 2026andWMP Nos.9912 & 9913 of 2026G.SaravananSon of Mr. Ganapathy, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No. 2/202, Perumal Kovil Street, Mettukuppam, Mugalivakkam, Chennai - 600 125..Petitioner(s)Vs1.Securities and Exchange Board of India, Through its Chairman, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C4-A, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 4000512.Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, Through its ChairmanPhiroze Jeejeebhoy TowersDalal StreetMumbai - 4000013.M/s. NTL India Limited,A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,Represented by its DirectorsMr. D. Ramesh and Mr. B. DayanithiHaving its registered office at__________Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9191 of 2026No. 11/2, Muthyal Reddy Street, Alandur, Chennai 600 0164.Mr. D. Ramesh, Son of S. Durairaj, Director, M/s.
NTL India Private Limited, Residing at New No. 292, Old No. 150,B 1, 2nd Floor, Peters Road, GopalapuramChennai - 600 086.5.Mr. B. DayanithiSon of K. Balakrishnan, Director, M/s. NTL India Private Limited, Residing at New No. 354, Old No. 2193 C, 2nd Floor, Jeypore Terrace Apartments, Lloyds Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086..Respondent(s)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the in-principle approval dated 20.2.202026 granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent permitting it to proceed with its proposed initial Public Offering (IPO)under the SME Segment, to quash the same and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to forbear from giving effect to the said approval. For Petitioner(s):Mr.S.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counselfor Mr.Vignesh.KFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh for R1 Mr.Venkatavaradhan for M/s.Sriram Venkatavaradhan for R3-R5Mr.R.Venkatraman for M/s.Tatva Legal for R2__________Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.
Operative part
9191 of 2026ORDERWhen the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition. An endorsement to that effect has also been made in the court bundle.2. Recording the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.01-04-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoUma__________Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9191 of 2026To1.The Chairman Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C4-A, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 4000512.The Chairman Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, Phiroze Jeejeebhoy TowersDalal StreetMumbai - 4000013.M/s. NTL India Limited,A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,Represented by its DirectorsMr. D. Ramesh and Mr. B. DayanithiHaving its registered office atNo. 11/2, Muthyal Reddy Street, Alandur, Chennai 600 016__________Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 9191 of 2026M.DHANDAPANI, J.UmaWP No. 9191 of 2026 andWMP Nos.9912 & 9913 of 202601-04-2026__________Page5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.