Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Section 11 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Bhoruka Financial Services Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 10 May, 2006
In view of the above, we hold that the word 'inquiry' used in Section 11(4) refers to the inquiries held under Sections 11, 11B, also to the enquiry under the inquiry regulations framed under Section 12(3) and also to the inquiry held under Chapter VIA and it is during the pendency of any of these inquiries that an interim order could be passed with a view to protect the interests of investors or in the interest of the market". A contrary view of SAT in the matter of Bhoruka Financial Services Ltd. v. SEBI has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated August 25, 2006.
Ketan Parekh vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 14 July, 2006
As pointed out by Best in "Law of Evidence", the presumption of innocence is no doubt presumptio juris; but everyday practice shows that it may be successfully encountered by the presumption of guilt arising from circumstances, though it may be a presumption of fact. It is exceedingly difficult to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the parties proceeded against and in that view the findings would be inferential from the conduct of the parties. The legal proof in such circumstances partakes the character of a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the case. The Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal has observed in the matter of Ketan Parekh v. SEBI:
Section 11C in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Anand Rathi vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 28 February, 2002
The power of SEBI has to be aligned with what is sought to be achieved in the legislative intent and any attempt to deny the same would stultify the very purpose for which the law was enacted. If one has regard to the aforesaid principles, it would follow that the power which has been conferred under Section 11B of the Act to issue direction are of a widest possible amplitude and are exercisable in the interests of investors. The powers of SEBI to pass orders under these sections have been judicially recognized by various judgments. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Anand Rathi v. SEBI had inter alia observed as follows:
Section 19 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. vs Sebi on 8 January, 2007
As far as his contention that initiation of investigation/ enquiry is a condition precedent for passing a direction under Section 11 (4) of the Act, I note that the powers under Section 11 (4) of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of powers under Sections 11 (1), (2), (2A) and (3) and 11B of the Act. SEBI being the regulator carries with it all the necessary powers expressed or implied which are essential to meet any exigencies in its widest amplitude in order to protect the interest of investors. In such circumstances, the contention that the initiation of investigation/inquiry is a condition precedent for the issuance of direction under Section 11 (4) of the Act is difficult to accept. Further, the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), in its order dated January 08, 2007 inter alia observed in the matter of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. v SEBI "If the prima facie facts disclose a case for proceeding further in the matter and depending upon the nature and gravity of the wrong doing, it would decide what measures it needs to take under Section 11 to protect the securities market and also the interests of the investors. If it feels that immediate preventive action is essential, it can "restrain persons from accessing the securities market and prohibit any person associated with securities market to buy, sell or deal in securities" with immediate effect"...." The SAT further observed in the case cited supra "The provisions of the Act are basically intended to protect the interests of the investors and to promote the market. However, the Act as initially enacted provided primarily for taking promotional or protective measures. The power to take preventive or punitive measures was implicit. Now it has been expressly extended to taking even the preventive or punitive measures....
1