Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Mahabir Kishore & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 1989
Further, in Mahabir
Kishore v/s State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) 4 SCC 1 (Civil
Appeal No. 1826 (N) of 1974 decided on July 31, 1989 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Enrichment may take the
form of direct advantage to the recipient such as by the receipt
of money or indirect one for instance where inevitable expense
has been saved.
Dushyant N Dalal vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 4 October, 2017
In any case disgorgement is not a
penal action but only an equitable remedy as held by this
Tribunal in Dushyant N. Dalal & Anr. (supra). The ratio of
Relfo Ltd. (in liquidation) (supra) is fully relevant in the present
matter since there is no reason at all for a tracing action. Rather,
such a tracing is not necessary here since it is evidently clear
38
from the records that US$ 92 million was transferred by Cals to
Asia Texx and Cals did not get back either this amount or the
refinery machinery. Asia Texx is, therefore, a direct recipient of
the amount of US$ 92 million.
Securities & Exchange Board Of India vs Kishore R.Ajmera on 23 February, 2016
However, in
securities laws violations orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in respect of SEBI v/s Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) and several
others has held that circumstantial evidence or preponderance of
probability is sufficient to prove such violations. In any case, in
the matter before us we hold that the appellants have made
unjust/ unlawful gains to the tune of US$ 92 million beyond any
doubt.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
11. The learned senior counsel for the respondent while
distinguishing the orders cited by the appellants relied on
various judgements to substantiate his contentions. Citing the
judgement of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s Jagannath and
Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 (Civil Appeal No. 994 of 1972 decided on
October 27, 1993, it was submitted that since the appellant,
Gagan Rastogi, vide his affidavit dated July 19, 2017 made a
false statement about his lack of association/ connection with
Cals (while he was actually a shareholder of SRM Exploration
Pvt. Ltd. which in turn had become the Promoter of Cals), the
appellant Gagan Rastogi does not deserve any relief and such a
false declaration alone is sufficient to dismiss the appeal
forthwith. Further quoting Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code
which contains the definition of "wrongful gain" and "wrongful
loss" as under:
Section 11 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 11A in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
K. N. Mehra vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 February, 1957
the learned senior counsel submitted that what is important is
whether one has acquired any gain wrongfully, retention of the
said gain is not important. This is further emphasised by the
judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. N. Mehra v/s State
of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369 (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of
1955 decided on February 11, 1957), Shri Krishan Kumar v/s
Union of India AIR 1959 SC 1390 (Criminal Appeal No. 114
of 1957 decided on May 21, 1959).