TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Sections 15Y and 20A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 in a suit for recovery arising out of a contractual incentive arrangement linked to a public issue.
Analysis: The bar under Sections 15Y and 20A applies only where the subject matter is one which the Board, the Adjudicating Officer, or the Securities Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. The recovery claim in question was a contractual claim for money and not an underwriting dispute or any matter for which the SEBI Act or its regulations provided an adjudicatory mechanism. The absence of any specific statutory provision empowering SEBI authorities to decree recovery of such a claim meant that exclusion of civil jurisdiction could not be inferred. Ouster of civil court jurisdiction is not to be readily presumed, and where no forum under the Act is competent to decide the dispute, the civil court remains available.
Conclusion: The bar of civil court jurisdiction did not apply and the suit was maintainable before the civil court.
Final Conclusion: The impugned dismissal of the recovery suits was set aside and the matters were left to proceed before the appropriate civil court for adjudication in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Civil court jurisdiction is excluded under the SEBI Act only for matters that the Act or its regulations expressly entrust to SEBI authorities or the appellate tribunal; a contractual recovery claim remains within civil jurisdiction where no such statutory adjudicatory power exists.
TaxTMI 
