Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Ubs Securities Asia Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 9 September, 2005

M/S. Dear Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs Sebi on 31 July, 2014

28. Regarding the case of UBS Securities Asia Ltd. Vs. SEBI., it would be pertinent to appreciate the background in which the principle of ambiguity in law crept in that case before this Tribunal while passing order dated September 9, 2005 in Appeal no. 97 of 2005. The appellant therein, namely, UBS Securities Asia Ltd. was a part of UBS Investment Bank, headquartered in New York and London. UBS had been a registered Foreign Institutional Investor with SEBI, interalia, involved in the transactions of Off-Shore Derivative Instruments.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Hero Insurance Broking India Private ... vs The Insurance Regulatory And ... on 8 October, 2025

12. Keeping in view the ambiguity in the guidelines, we are in agreement with the proposition laid down in para No. 109 of UBS Securities Asia Ltd. (supra) that in case of violation of a vague regulation, there should not be penalty on accused. If two constructions are possible, court must lean towards the construction which exempts subject from penalty. Legislature should have made its intent clear by use of clear and unambiguous language.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dlf Limited vs Sebi on 13 March, 2015

162. Reliance placed by counsel for appellants on decisions of this Tribunal in case of UBS Securities Asia Ltd. (Supra), BPL Ltd. (Supra), decision of Delhi High Court, in case of Indian Bank Mutual Fund (Supra) and decisions of the Apex Court in case of Ritesh Agarwal (Supra) and Bharjatiya Steel Industries (Supra) are misplaced. None of those decisions lay down a proposition of law that unless it is established that the investors were actually prejudiced on account of the violations committed by a person, restraint/prohibitory order under Section 11/11B, cannot be passed against that person. In all those cases either it is held that there are no violations or it is held depending on facts of each case, that the remedial/preventive measure taken by SEBI without establishing that the interest of investors are prejudiced cannot be sustained. In none of those cases it is held that before passing restrain/prohibitory order under Section 11/11B, SEBI must mandatorily establish that the interest of investors are actually prejudiced on account of violations committed. Thus, none of the aforesaid decisions support the case of appellants.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 94 - Cited by 2 - J P Devadhar - Full Document
1