Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Sebi vs Jm Morgan Stanley Private Limited on 18 February, 2005 cites

Bajaj Auto Ltd vs N. K. Firodia & Anr. Etc on 4 September, 1970

It is well settled that the exercise of discretion on part of a merchant banker whether to include certain information or not in the interest of the investors is akin to the exercise of discretion which a Board of Directors exercises in the interest of all its shareholders. It is well settled law that when a Board acts bonafide and not arbitrarily and not for any collateral motive, the exercise of discretion of the Board is to be tested as the opinion of fair and sensible men in the interest of the Company (Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Firodia 1971 41 Co. Cases).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 52 - A N Ray - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors on 2 February, 1982

f) To place an additional requirement upon the Noticee to disclose reasons for the payment of premium paid almost a year prior to the date of the public announcement and penalize the Noticee for not doing so would be read into the SAST Regulation, provisions which do not exist. It is well settled that a statute which creates an offence or imposes a penalty must be construed strictly in favour of the subject (State of WB and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors (1982) 1 SCC 561))
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 711 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Cabot International Capital ... on 3 March, 2004

"The appellant can, at best, be held to have made a technical lapse. In such circumstances, the role of a regulator is to rehabilitate and bring to an end litigation, which may not cast a stigma on the appellant, who otherwise, admittedly, has maintained a good track record. The High Court in Cabot's case has pronounced that if a breach was merely technical and unintentional, it does not merit penal consequence. It ultimately depends on the facts of each case. In this case, the breach was bona fide and the appellant was under the impression since it had already made a disclosure earlier it was not necessary to make a fresh disclosure once again. This, in our view, is an error of judgment and, at best, an error of understanding the law. Ignorance of law is no excuse but an erroneous interpretation is a mitigating factor especially if such interpretation is honest and bona fide to the knowledge of the appellant. Following the judgment in Cabot International and for the reasons stated herein, we hold that the breach cannot be called as deliberate and the non-disclosure was due to lack of understanding of the law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside."
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 48 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

c) Without prejudice to what is stated in (b) above, the Noticee submits that the enquiry officer failed to appreciate that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of any offence under the SAST Regulations. The Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that the show cause notice makes no finding on mens rea, therefore no penalty can be imposed (Akbar Badrudin Jiwani v. Collector Air 1990 SC 1579, Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa AIR 1970 SC 253)).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document

Chona Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 23 August, 2004

12. For the purpose of taking a final view in the matter of awarding penalty, I have also taken note of the case of Chona Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. SEBI - Appeal No. 95/2003 where the penalty of four months suspension was reduced to a warning. In this case, the intermediary was found guilty of delaying payments to clients, dealing with unregistered sub-brokers, delay in issue of contract notes, duplicate contract notes not bearing clients acknowledgement, stamp duty not fixed as per requirement and non-segregation of client and own funds. While deciding the case, the Hon'ble SAT had observed as follows:
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1