Search Results for "SEBI Investigation"

63 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 63 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds SEBI Order Against Corporate Giant in Futures Manipulation Case. The Court held that cornering 93.63% open interest through agents and dumping shares to depress settlement price constituted fraud under PFUTP Regulations.

The case involves appeals by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against orders of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) which upheld SEBI's findings ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging SEBI's Ex-Parte Interim Order in Securities Market Manipulation Case. Court upholds SEBI's power to issue ex-parte interim directions under Section 11B of SEBI Act, 1992 to protect market integrity.

The Bombay High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by Hemant Kulshrestha and Vinay Bansal challenging an ex-parte interim order passed by the Se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging SEBI's Power to Call Call Data Records. SEBI's Investigative Powers Under Section 11 of SEBI Act, 1992 Include Access to CDRs, and Such Access Does Not Violate Right to Privacy.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Indian Council of Investors challenging the Securities and Exchange Bo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Clarifies SEBI's Jurisdiction in Investor Compensation Claims Under Securities Law. SEBI Lacks Power to Award Direct Compensation but Can Order Disgorgement of Ill-Gotten Gains for Restitution Under Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

The dispute originated in 2005 when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a show-cause notice to M/s. Vital Communications Limited ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging SEBI Consent Guidelines Requiring Pendency of Proceedings. Requirement of pendency of court proceedings or adjudication for consent applications under SEBI Guidelines is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioners, Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of cl...