Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Kanwar Natwar Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr on 5 October, 2010
18. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we find that a
large number of documents have been supplied by the
respondent and, therefore, the contention that till such time
all the documents are not supplied an efficacious reply
cannot be filed is patently erroneous. The respondent have
categorically stated that the documents relied upon by them
have been duly supplied. We are of the opinion that if the
GT report contains any annexures or appendices which are
part of the report, the same is required to be supplied but
such contention, namely, that the findings or analysis made
in the G.T. report is based on certain documents and,
therefore such underlying documents that form the basis of
such finding are required to be supplied is farfetched and
cannot be accepted otherwise there would be no end to
stretching the principles of natural justice embodied under
Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in
Natwar Singh (supra) clearly underlines that the principles
of natural justice does not require supply of documents
16
upon which no reliance has been placed by the authority
and that the principles of natural justice are not intended to
act as a roadblock to obstruct statutory requirements. We
are of the opinion that adequate disclosure has been made
which ensures enforcement within the ambit of Article 14
of the Constitution.
Dr. Prannoy Roay And Anr vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 6 January, 2020
In Dr. Prannoy Roy
and Anr. vs. SEBI dated 6th January, 2020 one of the issue
raised was with regard to inspection and supply of
documents. The writ court dismissed the writ petition of
Dr. Prannoy Roy and Anr. holding:
Kanwar Natwar Singh vs Director Of Enforcement And Anr. on 28 March, 2008
14. The Supreme Court in Natwar Singh vs. Director of
Enforcement (supra) held that even the principles of
natural justice do not require supply of documents upon
which no reliance has been placed by the authority to set
the law in motion and further held that the concept of
fairness is not a one way street and that the principles of
natural justice are not intended to operate as a roadblock to
obstruct statutory inquiries. The Supreme Court held that
the principles of natural justice do not supplant the law of
land but supplements it and, therefore, duty of adequate
disclosure was only an additional procedural safeguard in
order to ensure attainment of fairness which has its own
limitations. In this regard, the Supreme Court held:
Section 11 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 11B in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 15T in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Institute Of Chartered Accountants vs L.K. Ratna & Others on 21 October, 1986
In
support of his submission the learned counsel placed
reliance in Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement
(2010) 13 SCC 255 and in the matter of Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna and Ors.
(1986) 4 SCC 537.