Securities market restraint cannot rest on prima facie suspicion alone when individual roles remain uncrystallised and replies go unaddressed.

A confirmatory restraint on securities market access cannot continue where the findings remain only prima facie, the individual roles of the noticees have not been crystallised, and their replies are not meaningfully addressed. The appellate tribunal noted that the order rested on suspicion and presumed vicarious liability, while the material available did not justify continued exclusion from the market on such untested allegations. Because no specific findings of individual responsibility were recorded and the submissions were not properly considered, the restraint could not be sustained against the affected parties and was set aside qua them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmatory order restraining the appellants could be sustained when the findings against them were only prima facie, their individual roles had not been crystallised, and their replies were not meaningfully dealt with.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on suspicion regarding the appellants' involvement while acknowledging that the exact roles of the noticees had not been fully ascertained. It recorded the appellants' submissions but did not address them in a meaningful manner. The restraint had continued for a substantial period, and the material then available did not justify continued exclusion of the appellants from the securities market merely on the basis of uncrystallised allegations and presumed vicarious liability.

Conclusion: The confirmatory order could not be sustained against the appellants and was set aside qua them.

Ratio Decidendi: A restraining order affecting market access cannot be sustained indefinitely on uncrystallised allegations and prima facie suspicion when the affected persons' submissions are not meaningfully considered and no specific findings of individual role are recorded.

---