Supreme Court Upholds Investor Protection Order, SEBI to Conduct Inquiry The Supreme Court declined to interfere with an ad-interim order in a case concerning investor protection, directing the High Court to conduct day-to-day ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court Upholds Investor Protection Order, SEBI to Conduct Inquiry
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with an ad-interim order in a case concerning investor protection, directing the High Court to conduct day-to-day hearings without adjournments. SEBI and ROC were ordered to file counter affidavits, with SEBI permitted to conduct an inquiry and obtain investor names from Respondent No.1. The Court emphasized expeditious resolution without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The Respondent agreed to cooperate with SEBI, subject to pending matters. The special leave petition was disposed of, urging the High Court to promptly decide the issue.
Issues: Ad-interim order, protection of investors, direction to High Court for day-to-day hearing, SEBI and ROC to file counter affidavit, liberty to SEBI for inquiry, direction to Respondent No.1 to provide investor names to ROC.
The Supreme Court, in a case involving an ad-interim order and the protection of investors, decided not to interfere at the current stage due to the impending peremptory hearing. However, considering the stakes involved, the Court directed the High Court to conduct day-to-day hearings from a specified date without adjournments. SEBI and ROC were instructed to submit their counter affidavit by a certain date, with immediate copy furnished to Respondent No.1. The High Court's order allowed SEBI to proceed with the inquiry while directing Respondent No.1 to provide investor names to ROC as per specified notices. The Court clarified that SEBI could request any necessary information, including investor names, during the inquiry. Respondent No.1 agreed to cooperate with SEBI's information requests, with a caveat regarding pending matters. The Court emphasized that no opinion on the case's merits was expressed and urged the High Court to promptly hear and decide the matter. The special leave petition was disposed of accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
