Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Sebi vs Ms. Himani Patel on 30 November, 2007 cites

Ketan Parekh vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 14 July, 2006

3.15 Thus, it prima facie appears that Ms. Patel had complete control over the dematerialized accounts held in the names of fictitious / benami entities and those fictitious / benami entities were merely name-lenders. Proof of manipulation almost always depends on inferences drawn from a mass of factual details. Findings must be gathered from patterns, nature of the transactions etc. The evidence, direct or circumstantial, should be sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to the existence of a fact sought to be proved. 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 SAT has observed in the matter of Ketan Parekh v. SEBI:
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. vs Sebi on 8 January, 2007

3.2 As far as her 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 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, 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.... "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" (Emphasis supplied).
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Anand Rathi vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India on 28 February, 2002

3.1 At the outset, I note that Ms. Patel in her reply inter alia contended that the provisions of Sections, 11, 11B and 11 (4) of the Act could not be invoked without initiating an investigation / enquiry and that she had not received any intimation regarding the initiation of such enquiry or investigation. In this context, I note that the primary function and duty of SEBI is to protect the interests of the investors in securities and to regulate the securities market. The said duty is inter alia performed under Sections 11, 11B of the Act which is the very soul and heart of it. On a careful perusal of Section 11, it could be seen that SEBI has been mandated to protect the interests of investors in securities by such measures as it thinks fit which provide a large sweep to SEBI. The provisions of the Act such as 11B, 11(4) etc are meant to arm SEBI with authority so as to enable it effectively to exercise power and achieve the declared objectives of the Act. It is clear that a common thread runs through the various provisions of the Act to empower SEBI to take preventive as well as punitive measures so as to protect the investors and to promote the securities market. One cannot lose sight of the fact that SEBI has to regulate a speculative market and in such a market varied situations may arise, all of which cannot be envisaged and that there may be an urgent need to pass an order. 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:
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 33 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1