SEBI interim restraint powers upheld where delegated authority and investor protection justified action pending inquiry.

The article explains that in SEBI-related matters, an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where appellate relief is not practically effective before the impugned direction operates. It also notes that the chairman's authority can be sustained through SEBI's delegation framework, where the Board has authorised action by resolution. On Section 11B, it states that wide enabling power permits interim regulatory directions to protect investors and the securities market, including restraint on fresh brokerage activity pending inquiry. Such a measure may be upheld on prima facie material even without prior hearing when it is regulatory in character and does not amount to suspension or cancellation under Section 12.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the availability of an appeal barred the writ petitions and interim relief; (ii) Whether the chairman of SEBI was competent to issue the impugned direction under the Act and the Regulations; (iii) Whether the direction restraining the petitioners from undertaking fresh brokerage business pending inquiry was within Section 11B and offended the principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the availability of an appeal barred the writ petitions and interim relief.

Analysis: The existence of an alternate remedy was held to be a rule of convenience and discretion, not a complete bar to writ jurisdiction. On the facts, the petitioners could not practically secure appellate relief before the impugned direction took effect, and the writ petitions were therefore maintainable.

Conclusion: The alternate remedy did not bar the petitions or the request for interim relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the chairman of SEBI was competent to issue the impugned direction under the Act and the Regulations.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read with the Board's delegation power. Section 19 permitted delegation by general or special order, and the record disclosed a Board resolution authorising the chairman to take action for defaults under the Act, Rules and Regulations. On that basis, the chairman's competence was upheld.

Conclusion: The chairman was competent to issue the impugned direction.

Issue (iii): Whether the direction restraining the petitioners from undertaking fresh brokerage business pending inquiry was within Section 11B and offended the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 11B was treated as an enabling provision of wide amplitude, meant to protect investors and the securities market and to permit interim measures incidental to the final power. The restraint was viewed as an interim regulatory measure pending inquiry, not as suspension or cancellation under Section 12. In that setting, and on the prima facie material, the Court held that the absence of a prior hearing did not make the direction invalid for purposes of interim relief.

Conclusion: The impugned direction was within Section 11B and no interim relief was warranted on the ground of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the interim SEBI direction failed at the interlocutory stage, the ad interim protection was vacated, and only a limited temporary trading permission was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: An enabling regulatory power to protect investors and the securities market includes the authority to issue necessary interim directions pending inquiry, and such action may be sustained without prior hearing where it is regulatory in character and supported by delegated competence.

---