Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.62 seconds)
Documents citing Bpl Limited vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 20 June, 2002

Rakesh Agrawal vs Securities Exchange Board Of India on 3 November, 2003

76. No aggrieved party has come forward till date, despite the fact that the impugned order is dated June 10, 2001 and was widely available and publicized shortly thereafter, that there appear to be no aggrieved persons, to compensate, that this being the case, the said directions to deposit Rs. 34,00,000/- is in the nature of penalty. It is well established in law that power exercisable pursuant to Section 11 B of the said Act is purely remedial in nature, and that no penal orders can be passed pursuant thereto. [Sterlite Industries v. SEBI, BPL v. SEBI Appeal Nos.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 43 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ksl And Industries Ltd. vs The Chairman, The Securities And ... on 30 September, 2003

16. Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent has issued the directions under section 11B of the SEBI Act and regulation 12 of the FUTP Regulations. He submitted that the scope of the directions which can be issued under regulation 12 is circumscribed by the Regulation itself in clause (a) to (d) under the said regulation that: (a) directing the person concerned not to deal in securities in any manner (b) requiring the person concerned to call upon any of its officers, other employees or representatives to refrain from dealing in securities in any particular manner (c) prohibiting the person concerned from disposing of any of the securities acquired in contravention of the FUTP Regulations and (d) directing the person concerned to dispose of any such securities acquired in contravention of the FUTP Regulations in such manner as the Board may deem fit for restoring the status quo. Learned Counsel submitted that the direction debarring the Appellant "from accessing and being associated with the capital market" for a period of five years is not a direction contemplated under regulation 12. Learned Counsel further submitted that section 11B is also not available to issue such a direction as the impugned order is out and out punitive and section 11B is not available to issue such punitive directions has been made clear by this Tribunal in its order in Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. SEBI ((2001) 34 SCL 485) that 'Section 11B does not even remotely empower the Respondent to impose penalties' that the Tribunal has been consistently following the said view in other cases also, and he also cited BPL Ltd. v. SEBI ((2002) 38 SCL 310) in support thereof.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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

On this corporate fraud coming to light, SEBI instituted proceedings against the directors of the company, and the matter went upto the Supreme Court in Ritesh Agarwal. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India. The Supreme Court, while taking note of the corporate fraud played by the directors, exonerated Ritesh Agarwal and Deepak Agarwal on the ground that they were minors by the date of the public issue. Relying on BPL Limited v. Securities & Exchange Board of India and Videocon International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India the Supreme Court held that, apart from the actions taken by the Board, the persons who undertook these fraudulent actions must also be held to be guilty of making a mis-representation, and commission of fraud not only before the prospective purchasers of the shares, but also before the statutory authority. The same, however, would itself not mean that a minor could be penalized for entering into a contract which per se was not enforceable. The Supreme Court permitted SEBI to take necessary action against Shri Surender Kumar Agarwal and Smt.Rooprekha Agarwal, while setting aside the order against Ritesh Agarwal and Deepak Agarwal who were minors by then. As the Supreme Court has directed that action be taken against certain promoters of the company for their active role in the corporate fraud, the Auditor, who certified and confirmed receipt of contribution from the promoters, cannot absolve himself of all blame and contend that the ambivalent certificate issued by him was merely a professional lapse, and not gross-negligence on his part.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Unknown vs The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ...

On this corporate fraud coming to light, SEBI instituted proceedings against the directors of the company, and the matter went upto the Supreme Court in Ritesh Agarwal. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India. The Supreme Court, while taking note of the corporate fraud played by the directors, exonerated Ritesh Agarwal and Deepak Agarwal on the ground that they were minors by the date of the public issue. Relying on BPL Limited v. Securities & Exchange Board of India and Videocon International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India the Supreme Court held that, apart from the actions taken by the Board, the persons who undertook these fraudulent actions must also be held to be guilty of making a mis-representation, and commission of fraud not only before the prospective purchasers of the shares, but also before the statutory authority. The same, however, would itself not mean that a minor could be penalized for entering into a contract which per se was not enforceable. The Supreme Court permitted SEBI to take necessary action against Shri Surender Kumar Agarwal and Smt.Rooprekha Agarwal, while setting aside the order against Ritesh Agarwal and Deepak Agarwal who were minors by then. As the Supreme Court has directed that action be taken against certain promoters of the company for their active role in the corporate fraud, the Auditor, who certified and confirmed receipt of contribution from the promoters, cannot absolve himself of all blame and contend that the ambivalent certificate issued by him was merely a professional lapse, and not gross-negligence on his part.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 Next