Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 11B in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Chingleput Bottlers vs Majestic Bottling Company on 15 March, 1984
Therefore, we say that there must be observed
some modicum of residual, core natural justice
sufficient to enable the affected person to make
an adequate representation (These
considerations may not, however, apply to
cases of liquor licensing which involve the
grant of a privilege and are not a matter of
right; See Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic
Bottling Company. That may be and in some
cases it can only be after an initial exparte
interim order is made."
Dr. Udayant Malhoutra vs Sebi on 27 June, 2020
In support of their
submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance upon
various decisions of this Tribunal in the matters of Affluence
Fincon Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs SEBI (Appeal no. 269 of
2020 decided on September 07, 2020), Dr. Udayant Malhoutra
vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 145 of 2020 decided on June 27, 2020),
Cameo Corporate Services Limited vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 566
of 2019 decided on November 26, 2019, North End Foods
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs SEBI (Appeal no. 80 of 2019 decided
on March 12, 2019) and Mahavir Singh N Chauhan vs SEBI
(Appeal no. 393 of 2018 decided on October 18, 2019).
Liberty Oil Mills & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 1 May, 1984
In Liberty Oil Mills & Ors. vs. Union of India &
Ors. AIR (1984) SC 1271, the Supreme Court held
that the urgency must be infused by a host of
circumstances and further held that the regulatory
agency must move quickly in order to curb further
mischief and take action immediately in order to
instill and restore confidence in the capital market.
There is no doubt that only under emergent
circumstances and spelling out a case of urgency
that an ad interim ex parte orders can be passed.
Such exercise of regulatory measures in the form of
ad-interim ex-parte orders can only be done upon
the existence of circumstances warranting such a
drastic measure.
North End Foods Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Sebi on 12 March, 2019
In support of their
submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance upon
various decisions of this Tribunal in the matters of Affluence
Fincon Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs SEBI (Appeal no. 269 of
2020 decided on September 07, 2020), Dr. Udayant Malhoutra
vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 145 of 2020 decided on June 27, 2020),
Cameo Corporate Services Limited vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 566
of 2019 decided on November 26, 2019, North End Foods
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs SEBI (Appeal no. 80 of 2019 decided
on March 12, 2019) and Mahavir Singh N Chauhan vs SEBI
(Appeal no. 393 of 2018 decided on October 18, 2019).
Anand Rathi And Ors. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 2 May, 2001
In Anand Rathi and Others vs Securities and Exchange
Board of India, 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 522 a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court while interpreting the provisions of Section
11 and 11B of the SEBI Act held:-
B. Hariharan vs Sebi on 6 April, 2021
In Gautam Thapar & Ors. vs Securities and Exchange
Board of India, Appeal no. 413 of 2019 decided on October 1,
2019 this Tribunal held:-
Affluence Fincon Service Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Sebi on 7 May, 2021
In support of their
submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance upon
various decisions of this Tribunal in the matters of Affluence
Fincon Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs SEBI (Appeal no. 269 of
2020 decided on September 07, 2020), Dr. Udayant Malhoutra
vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 145 of 2020 decided on June 27, 2020),
Cameo Corporate Services Limited vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 566
of 2019 decided on November 26, 2019, North End Foods
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs SEBI (Appeal no. 80 of 2019 decided
on March 12, 2019) and Mahavir Singh N Chauhan vs SEBI
(Appeal no. 393 of 2018 decided on October 18, 2019).
1