Court upholds SEBI's new regulations, clarifies procedural changes, allows ongoing investigations to proceed.

The Court upheld the Securities and Exchange Board of India's authority to proceed under new regulations for violations of repealed regulations. It clarified that regulation 11 of the New Regulations primarily involves interim measures pending final decisions, distinguishing between substantive and procedural law. The judgment emphasized the procedural nature of the changes in regulations, allowing ongoing investigations to continue under the new regulations. The Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the show-cause notice, denying costs to either party.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of regulations under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
2. Applicability of repealed regulations in ongoing investigations.
3. Power of the Board under regulation 11 of the New Regulations.
4. Distinction between procedural and substantive law in the context of the Act.
5. Validity of show-cause notice issued by the Board.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the General Manager of the Securities and Exchange Board of India, questioning his involvement in irregular share allotments by a company in 1999 under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

2. The petitioner argued that the Board lacked the authority to take action under the new regulations against him for violations of the repealed regulations. However, the respondent contended that the Board could proceed under the new regulations even for violations of the old regulations.

3. The Court examined the provisions of the Act and the regulations to determine the scope of the Board's power under regulation 11 of the New Regulations. It concluded that regulation 11 primarily outlined interim measures to be taken pending a final decision under the Act.

4. The Court distinguished between substantive and procedural law, noting that regulation 11 of the New Regulations was procedural in nature, aimed at facilitating investigations and reaching conclusions rather than imposing penalties for offenses.

5. The judgment emphasized that the changes in regulations were procedural and applied to ongoing cases, citing specific provisions in the new regulations that allowed for the continuation of investigations initiated under the repealed regulations.

6. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the show-cause notice, dismissing the writ petition and declining to award costs to either party based on the facts of the case.

---