Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (2.75 seconds)
Documents citing Seth Gulabchand vs Seth Kudilal And Others on 22 February, 1966

Unknown vs The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ...

In our opinion, Woodroffe, J., was wrong in insisting that such charges must be proved clearly and beyond reasonable doubt In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in Gulabchand v. Kudilal (referred supra), and the Judgment of the Privy Council in A, a pleader v. The Judges of the High Court of Madras (referred supra), it must be held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge, in a disciplinary proceedings, is on a preponderance of probabilities, and cannot be equated with the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution, wherein a charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is decided. POINT No.6:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... vs Shri Mukesh Gang, Chartered ... on 26 September, 2016

In our opinion, Woodroffe, J., was wrong in insisting that such charges must be proved clearly and beyond reasonable doubt In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in Gulabchand v. Kudilal (referred supra), and the Judgment of the Privy Council in A, a pleader v. The Judges of the High Court of Madras (referred supra), it must be held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge, in a disciplinary proceedings, is on a preponderance of probabilities, and cannot be equated with the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution, wherein a charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is decided. POINT No.6:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... vs Shri Mukesh Gang, Chartered ... on 26 September, 2016

In our opinion, Woodroffe, J., was wrong in insisting that such charges must be proved clearly and beyond reasonable doubt In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in Gulabchand v. Kudilal (referred supra), and the Judgment of the Privy Council in A, a pleader v. The Judges of the High Court of Madras (referred supra), it must be held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge, in a disciplinary proceedings, is on a preponderance of probabilities, and cannot be equated with the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution, wherein a charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is decided. POINT No.6:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... vs Ca Shri Subhajit Sahoo & Anr on 20 November, 2024

In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in Gulabchand v. Kudilal (referred supra), and the Judgment of the Privy Council in A, a pleader v. The Judges of the High Court of Madras (referred supra), it must be held that the standard of proof required to establish a charge, in a disciplinary proceedings, is on a preponderance of probabilities, and cannot be equated with the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution, wherein a charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is decided."
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

B S R And Associates Llp And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:42 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Udayan Sen vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:10 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sebi vs First Securities Pvt Ltd. on 30 November, 2005

The standard of proof required in a proceeding of this nature is at variance with the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It is sufficient if the preponderance of probabilities suggests towards the indulgence of the delinquent in the misconduct. The strict rules of Evidence Act and proof beyond reasonable doubt are not applicable to a proceeding of this nature. The Supreme Court's decision in Gulabchand v. Kudilal and the decision of the Special Court for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities in the matter of National Housing Bank v. ANZ Grindlays Bank, 1998 (2) LJ 153 is relied upon in this regard.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sebi vs Dagliya Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 29 September, 2005

The standard of proof required in a proceeding of this nature is at variance with the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It is sufficient if the preponderance of probabilities suggests towards the indulgence of the delinquent in the misconduct. The strict rules of Evidence Act and proof beyond reasonable doubt are not applicable to a proceeding of this nature. The Supreme Court's decision in Gulabchand v. Kudilal AIR, 1966, SC 1734 and the decision of the Special Court for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities in the matter of National Housing Bank v. ANZ Grindlays Bank, 1998 (2 ) LJ 153 is relied upon in this regard.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sebi vs Victory Financial Services Ltd. on 7 June, 2007

(emphasis not supplied) 6.22 Keeping in mind the dicta of the SAT as reproduced above; I see no reason to take a different view. Further, I observe that the standard of proof required in a proceeding of this nature is at variance with the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It is sufficient if the preponderance of probabilities suggests towards the indulgence of the delinquent in the misconduct. The strict rules of Evidence Act and proof beyond reasonable doubt are not applicable to a proceeding of this nature. The Supreme Court's decision in Gulabchand v. Kudilal and the decision of the Special Court for trial of offences relating to transactions in securities in the matter of National Housing Bank v. ANZ Grindlays Bank 1998 (2 ) LJ 153 is relied upon in this regard.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next