Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • 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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 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
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>SEBI Orders Quashed for Impounding Recovered Monies</h1> <h3>Alka Synthetics Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> Alka Synthetics Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India - [1998] 15 SCL 213 (GUJ.) Issues Involved:1. Authority of SEBI to impound/confiscate transaction proceeds.2. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat.3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.4. Validity of SEBI's orders under existing laws.5. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Authority of SEBI to Impound/Confiscate Transaction Proceeds:The primary issue was whether SEBI had the authority under existing laws to impound or confiscate transaction proceeds. The court held that SEBI did not have the authority under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, or the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995, to impound or forfeit monies received by the Stock Exchange as a result of concluded transactions. The court emphasized that deprivation of property could only occur by authority of law, which must be a positive or state-made law, and not by executive instructions or administrative discretion. The court found that SEBI's orders to impound the proceeds were not supported by any specific provision of law and thus were invalid.2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat:The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction. It held that the High Court of Gujarat had jurisdiction to entertain the petition because part of the cause of action arose within its territory. The court noted that the petitioner's registered office was in Ahmedabad, and significant parts of the investigation and subsequent actions by SEBI occurred in Ahmedabad. Therefore, the High Court of Gujarat had the authority to examine and issue directions regarding the impugned orders.3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The court found that SEBI's orders were made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The orders were issued without giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that pre-decisional hearing is a mandatory requirement under the regulations, and post-decisional hearing cannot cure the defect of not providing a pre-decisional hearing. The court held that the impugned orders were void ab initio due to the breach of natural justice principles.4. Validity of SEBI's Orders under Existing Laws:The court examined whether SEBI's orders could be sustained under the existing laws, specifically under sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act and the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. The court concluded that neither section 11 nor section 11B provided SEBI with the authority to impound or forfeit transaction proceeds. The court also noted that the regulations did not authorize SEBI to retain the amounts recovered by the Stock Exchange for its own use. Therefore, the orders were not valid under the existing legal framework.5. Applicability of the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:The court addressed the argument that the petitioners should not be granted relief on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked to justify SEBI's actions. The court explained that unjust enrichment requires that a person has been enriched at the expense of another, and the retention of such enrichment is unjust. In this case, the court found that the transactions were lawfully concluded, and the proceeds rightfully belonged to the petitioners. Therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable, and the relief could not be denied on this basis.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned orders dated 4-7-1996 and 25-1-1996 issued by SEBI, as well as the appellate order dated 22-5-1996, to the extent they directed the impounding of monies recovered by the respective Stock Exchanges. The court held that SEBI lacked the authority to issue such orders, and the orders were made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitions were allowed, and the rule was made absolute.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found