TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal restricts Board from premature interim directions pending investigations, emphasizes unbiased proceedings</h1> <h3>Bhoruka Financial Services Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> Bhoruka Financial Services Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Board could issue interim directions in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 before any investigation or inquiry is ordered in the matter.2. Whether the Board was justified in recording its findings on different issues even before the investigations as ordered on December 5, 2005, are yet to commence.3. Whether the impugned order is sustainable in law.Analysis:Issue 1: Interim Directions Before Investigation or InquiryThe Board's power to issue interim directions under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, was scrutinized. The Tribunal noted that the Act empowers the Board to protect the interests of investors and the integrity of the market. However, it was emphasized that interim directions can only be issued 'either pending investigation or inquiry or on completion of such investigation or inquiry.' The Tribunal clarified that the Board cannot take any steps before ordering an investigation or inquiry. If immediate action is necessary, the Board can order an ex-parte investigation and simultaneously issue interim directions. The Tribunal concluded that the interim order dated August 19, 2005, was without jurisdiction as no investigation or inquiry was pending at that time.Issue 2: Justification of Findings Before Commencement of InvestigationsThe Tribunal examined whether the Board was justified in recording findings on various issues before the investigations had commenced. The Board had recorded firm findings against the appellants, holding them guilty of various allegations. The Tribunal found that such findings were premature and amounted to pre-judging the issues. It was noted that the Board should have refrained from recording such findings and should have only recorded reasons for issuing interim directions. The Tribunal emphasized that recording firm findings at this preliminary stage could lead to a charge of bias and was unwise.Issue 3: Sustainability of the Impugned OrderThe Tribunal considered whether the impugned order dated December 6, 2005, was sustainable in law. It was noted that by December 5, 2005, the Board had ordered investigations into the alleged illegal trading. Therefore, the Board had the power to issue interim directions. However, the Tribunal found that the Board had recorded firm findings in the impugned order, which was not appropriate at this stage. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order but allowed the direction restraining DLF from transferring shares to continue until the final order was passed. The Tribunal modified the direction to the sellers, allowing them to deposit only the amount they had on hand (Rs. 5.7 crores) in an escrow account. The Tribunal also directed that adjudication proceedings against the sellers for non-compliance with the ex-parte order dated August 19, 2005, should not commence, as the order was beyond the Board's powers and illegal.ConclusionThe appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside in relation to the appellants. Interim directions were issued, and the Board was directed to conclude the investigations expeditiously by July 31, 2006. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 