TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proviso to Regulation 28(5) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, which imposes an absolute bar on representation by a lawyer or advocate at the enquiry stage except in the limited situation contemplated by the regulation, is unconstitutional for denying a stock broker a fair and reasonable opportunity of defence.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and the Regulations made thereunder authorises registration, suspension and cancellation of stock brokers and therefore affects important civil rights. Where disciplinary action may result in suspension of registration, the proceeding must conform to fair procedure and the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the impugned proviso removes all discretion from the enquiry authority even in cases involving complicated questions of law and fact and may place the broker at an unfair disadvantage. The availability of legal assistance in appropriate cases was treated as an integral aspect of a reasonable opportunity of defence where serious civil and pecuniary consequences may follow.
Conclusion: The proviso to Regulation 28(5) was held unconstitutional and struck down as violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The enquiry and the consequential orders of suspension were quashed, with liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that disciplinary proceedings affecting registration rights under the securities regulatory framework must allow a fair and meaningful defence, including legal assistance where the circumstances so require.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory rule that imposes an absolute bar on legal representation in a proceeding having serious civil consequences is liable to be invalidated where it denies a fair and reasonable opportunity of defence and is inconsistent with natural justice and fair procedure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
