Home Case Index All Cases SEBI This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

SEBI - Case Laws

Showing 501 to 514 of 514 Records

• 2003 (1) TMI 738 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the Adjudicating Officer thereon, and also in view of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Hindustan Steel's case, imposition of monetary penalty on the Appellant, in my view is unwarranted. 61. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside." 62. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that the Appellant acted deliberately, in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. On the contrary the evidence on record shows that the appellant had acted bonafide. Therefore, imposition of penalty was unwarranted. 63. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am of the view that the view taken by this Tribunal in HDFC and Samrat Holding is applicable to the present case also. 64. For the reasons stated above the impugned order can not be sustained. 65. The appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2002 (10) TMI 819 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nspiring confidence in the investors. An independent fact finding investigation into the complaint would be in tune with the said objective. 159. For the reasons stated above SEBI's finding that regulation 12 is not attracted requires reconsideration. SEBI is directed to properly investigate the question as to whether Ambujas acquired control over ACC as a result of acquisition of shares held by Tata group companies and in the light of the investigation, decide further course of action, if any, required. For the purpose the matter is remanded. 160. I would like to make it clear that SEBI shall not be influenced in its investigation or decision making in any manner by the observations made by the Tribunal in this order. All the contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. It is expected that the complainants and the other Respondents herein would extend full co-operation to SEBI in its investigation into the matter. 161. The appeal is disposed of in the above lines.

  ---

• 2002 (9) TMI 902 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... isions of regulations 10 and 12 are not applicable to the alleged acquisition of shares/takeover of control of the Bank, the Appellant has been deprived of his legal right to exit from the Bank and in the said context in my view the Appellant is a person aggrieved by the impugned order and as such entitled to prefer an appeal. This is not the first time that a shareholder claiming to be aggrieved by an order depriving him of participation in public offer approaching the Tribunal challenging such order in an appeal under section 15T. In Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation V. SEBI Others (2001) 32 SCL 631; Ashwin Doshi V. SEBI (appeal No. 44/2001) the appeals filed by the shareholders of the target companies were entertained by the Tribunal, recognizing them as persons aggrieved, by SEBI's order. 41. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the present appeal is maintainable. Order accordingly. 42. The Registry will post the appeal early for disposal.

  ---

• 2001 (8) TMI 1447 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he one under the 1994 regulations which was replaced by the 1997 regulations. These two cases are therefore of no relevance to the matter under consideration. 31. Section 15H(ii), which the Adjudicating Officer has invoked for the purpose of imposing penalty is applicable only if a person who is required under the Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, fails to make a public announcement to acquire shares at a minimum price. The Adjudicating Officer has imposed monetary penalty on the ground that appellant had violated the provisions of regulation 10, based on his finding that it acquired 15.04 per cent shares of APL without making an open offer. The said finding does not sustain for the reason that the appellant's acquisition entitling it to exercise voting rights was below the 10 percent benchmark provided in regulation 10. Therefore imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. 32. For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

  ---

• 2001 (8) TMI 1446 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... er dated 8th November, 2000 of the noticees, that around that period the shares were traded in BSE, at below par value, and there was no trading on Hyderabad and Chennai exchange. That means there was no loss to investors and gain to the Acquirers. This aspect was taken into account, therefore maximum penalty is not levied. 41. The fact that the acquisition price was more than the then prevailing market price, would have induced the investors to avail of the public offer and exit from the company gainfully may not be ignored. However, this benefit was in any case not available to the shareholders as the acquirers were exempted from making public offer under regulation 11(2) as the acquisition was in a preferential allotment. Since the Adjudicating Officer has taken into consideration the relevant factors while deciding the quantum of penalty, I do not consider it necessary to interfere with his decision in this regard. 42. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (7) TMI 1318 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ’s finding that the appellant is a promoter of MRL is tenable it cannot be held that the appellant is an acquirer or a person acting or deemed to be acting in concert with the acquirers and thereby ineligible to participate in the public offer. I am of the view that there is no legal backing flowing from the Act, or the Regulations to uphold the SEBI’s decision holding the appellant ineligible to participate in the public offer made vide letter dated 30-5-2001. 43. For the reasons stated above the appeal is allowed and the SEBI’s direction in the impugned order that the appellant shall not be eligible to participate in the public offer made by the acquirers vide letter dated 30-5-2001 is set aside. 44. I cannot part with this case without expressing my gratitude to the learned counsel on all sides who have co-operated with me extremely well for the disposal of the appeal within the time limit as specified in the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

  ---

• 2001 (4) TMI 956 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ing the Appellants not to take 7.7.2000 as the relevant date. 47. Shri Setalvad had stated that the Respondent had treated the Appellant's case discriminately vis-a-vis the acquisition of Bestfoods by Unilever Plc. The Respondent has explained in its written reply in detail how the facts relating to acquisition of Bestfoods is distinguishable from the facts of acquisition of Burmah Castrol by the Appellants. In the light of the information available before me, as provided by the parties, I am inclined to hold that the acquisition of Bestfoods is not exactly identical with the acquisition of Castrol (India) Ltd, to be treated identically. 48. In the light of the above discussion I am of the view that the impugned order is to be sustained and the relevant date for the purpose of deciding the offer price to the share holders of Castrol (India) Ltd should be 14.3.2000 and not 7.7.2000. 49. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (3) TMI 1073 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ons. In this case, I find that the AMC failed to comply with that Regulation, which provided for restriction on the activities of the AMC. Thus I find that the AMC violated restrictory provisions contained in Regulation 29 and consequently that of Regulation 19 which read with Regulation 10 of SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996 provides to the effect that the AMC should comply with the Regulations." Emphasis Supplied 24. The Adjudicating Officer has thus come to the categorical conclusion that the appellant had failed to make certain material disclosures in the AOD, inspite of SEBI's direction and decided to impose a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs as monetary penalty. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not consider that the decision of the Adjudicating Officer imposing ₹ 3 lakhs as penalty is unjustified. For the reasons stated above, imposition of penalty made by the respondent vide order dated 10-11-2000 is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2001 (1) TMI 1019 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cannot stand. The observation made by the Adjudicating Officer based on his satisfaction cannot be limited to applicability to regulation 11/section 15 (ii) alone as the facts are common. Further the Adjudicating Officer has also clearly stated in the order that the delay in filing of the report has not resulted in any gain to the Appellant. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order of any loss to any body. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had a past record of default. None of the factors of section 15 J is attracted in this case. In the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Hindustan Steel's case imposition of monetary penalty on the Appellant in my view is unwarranted. 30. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the order-imposing penalty on the Appellant cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. I do so. 31. The appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2000 (8) TMI 1135 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e respondent vide letter dated 4-5-2000 to consider "revoking the indefinite suspension in the trading of this scrip" - effected from 16-5-1996. In this context it is made clear that a company and its promoters are separate legal entities. A company cannot be substituted for promoters for the purpose of imposing penalties. It is also seen that the respondent had asked ASE to consider revoking the 4 year old ban on trading in the appellant’s scrips, but at the same time by the impugned order the appellant has been debarred from accessing the market for the next five years 9. In view of the above, I do not consider it necessary to examine the other points raised in the appeal as it is evident that the impugned order has been directed to the appellant without any justification. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned order against the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

  ---

• 2000 (7) TMI 1004 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... circumstances placed before me do not suggest that the appellants had acted diligently. 76. From the legal and factual position discussed above, it is clear that the appellants as Bankers to an Issue were duty bound to wait for the decision on the company’s application from both the stock exchanges mentioned in the prospectus and only after ensuring compliance of the statutory requirements, they should have decided to release the collection money to the company. Since they were holding the application money in trust they were accountable for its safe up keep and return. They cannot escape the liability for misapplication of money. The liability to refund the money is now on them. The appellants are not out of the reach of section 11B and the respondent is not short of power to reach them. 77. For the reasons discussed above, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is legally valid and there is no merit in the appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2000 (6) TMI 805 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... act in good faith and it must act reasonably." 51. In my considered opinion, the legal situation as projected by the Delhi High Court and the apex court would fully apply to the present case also. 52. In the light of the above principles, if we look at the facts of the present case, I take the view that the respondent has acted in good faith and reasonably within the limits of the authority through the mandates given to the respondents and the regulations framed thereof. 53. Therefore, I do not find merit in any of the contentions urged by the counsel for the applicant and, consequently, the application in O.A. No. 75 of 2000 is dismissed and A. No. 851 of 2000 is allowed. 54. However, it shall be stated that the observation of mine made above would confine to the disposal of this application alone; and it may not have any bearing on the decision to be taken by the court at the time of trial on the basis of the issues to be framed in the suit. 55. O.A. 75/2000 dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (11) TMI 696 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ard, by way of interim measures, pending inquiry. The same is intended for the protection of the interests of the investors and the securities markets. 29. The impugned orders, in our prima facie view, are fully justified. The petitioners, in the circumstances, are not entitled to interim reliefs claimed in the petition. Ad interim orders passed on November 1, 1998, and continued by an order passed on November 3, 1998, are vacated. 30. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners apply for stay of the present orders, as also for continuation of the aforesaid ad interim orders. Counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the same. 31. Having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the petitioners, for a period of four weeks from today, to trade in shares and securities other than BPL, Videocon, Sterlite and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. The petitioners' during the aforesaid period of four weeks will not trade in the aforementioned shares and securities.

  ---

• 1998 (4) TMI 577 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nsequences provided in the Act, it is difficult to accept the appellant s version that non-compliance of regulations is a mere technical lapse to be viewed leniently. The contention that the penalty of one lakh rupees imposed by the Adjudicating officer is high and that the quantum has been decided arbitrarily, disregarding the factors required to be taken into account as provided under section 15J of the Act , in my view, is not correct. The Adjudicating Officer in his order has clearly stated that while levying the penalty he had taken into consideration the nature of the offence, various other factors and circumstances as also the provisions of Section 15J of the Act. Against the maximum penalty of five lakh rupees provided in the Act, sum of one lakh rupees imposed, in my view is not unreasonable. I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.

  ---

1 ....2223242526