Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)Section 11B in The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [Entire Act]
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
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:-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd on 11 October, 1966
In support of his contention the learned senior counsel for
the respondent placed reliance on Commissioner of Income
Tax, West Bengal vs East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR
1967 SC 768, Vodafone International Holdings BV vs Union
of India and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 613, Kanta Mohan
Shinde and Others vs Charul N. Doshi and Another, 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 12496, Anand Rathi and Others vs
Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2002 (1) Mh.L.J.
522, Paramjit Singh Gill vs Securities and Exchange Board of
India, Appeal no. 52 of 2017 decided by this Tribunal on
August 11, 2017, Gautam Thapar & Ors. vs Securities and
Exchange Board of India, Appeal no. 413 of 2019 decided by
this Tribunal on October 1, 2019, Haryana Financial
Corporation and Another vs Kailash Chandra Ahuha, (2008)
9 SCC 31 and Union of India and Others vs Alok Kumar,
(2010) 5 SCC 349.
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008
In support of his contention the learned senior counsel for
the respondent placed reliance on Commissioner of Income
Tax, West Bengal vs East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR
1967 SC 768, Vodafone International Holdings BV vs Union
of India and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 613, Kanta Mohan
Shinde and Others vs Charul N. Doshi and Another, 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 12496, Anand Rathi and Others vs
Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2002 (1) Mh.L.J.
522, Paramjit Singh Gill vs Securities and Exchange Board of
India, Appeal no. 52 of 2017 decided by this Tribunal on
August 11, 2017, Gautam Thapar & Ors. vs Securities and
Exchange Board of India, Appeal no. 413 of 2019 decided by
this Tribunal on October 1, 2019, Haryana Financial
Corporation and Another vs Kailash Chandra Ahuha, (2008)
9 SCC 31 and Union of India and Others vs Alok Kumar,
(2010) 5 SCC 349.
Union Of India vs Alok Kumar on 16 April, 2010
In support of his contention the learned senior counsel for
the respondent placed reliance on Commissioner of Income
Tax, West Bengal vs East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd., AIR
1967 SC 768, Vodafone International Holdings BV vs Union
of India and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 613, Kanta Mohan
Shinde and Others vs Charul N. Doshi and Another, 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 12496, Anand Rathi and Others vs
Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2002 (1) Mh.L.J.
522, Paramjit Singh Gill vs Securities and Exchange Board of
India, Appeal no. 52 of 2017 decided by this Tribunal on
August 11, 2017, Gautam Thapar & Ors. vs Securities and
Exchange Board of India, Appeal no. 413 of 2019 decided by
this Tribunal on October 1, 2019, Haryana Financial
Corporation and Another vs Kailash Chandra Ahuha, (2008)
9 SCC 31 and Union of India and Others vs Alok Kumar,
(2010) 5 SCC 349.
North End Foods Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Sebi on 12 March, 2019
In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel
has placed reliance of a decision of this Tribunal in North End
Foods Marketing Pvt. Ltd.& Anr. vs SEBI, Appeal no. 80 of
2019 decided on March 12, 2019, Dr. Udayant Malhoutra vs
SEBI, Appeal no. 145 of 2020 decided on June 27, 2020,
Arshad Hussain Warsi & Ors. vs SEBI, Appeal no. 284 of
2023 decided on March 27, 2023 and Dr. Prannoy Roy vs
SEBI, Appeal (L) No. 345 of 2019 dated June 18, 2019.
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."
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.