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 directions under section 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 could be used to enforce alleged contraventions of sections 69, 73(3A) and 77 of the Companies Act, 1956 and sustain the impugned prohibition order against the issuer company and its directors.
Analysis: The notice and order proceeded on alleged violations of the minimum subscription requirement, the separate bank account requirement and the prohibition against a company buying its own shares. The Tribunal held that the adjudication had to remain confined to the charges in the show cause notice and that vague references to SEBI Guidelines and prospectus conditions could not enlarge those charges. It further held that section 55A of the Companies Act, 1956 only authorises SEBI to administer the specified Companies Act provisions in the manner provided by that Act, while section 32 of the SEBI Act makes its provisions supplemental and not overriding. On that basis, section 11B could not be invoked as the substantive source of power to take action for contraventions of sections 69, 73(3A) and 77 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be without jurisdiction insofar as it rested on alleged breaches of the Companies Act, 1956, and could not be sustained against the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the regulatory directions impugned before the Tribunal were set aside, while leaving SEBI free to proceed afresh in accordance with law on any legally sustainable charge.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 cannot be used as an independent enforcement power to punish or remedy contraventions of the Companies Act, 1956 where the Companies Act itself provides the governing enforcement framework and SEBI's role is confined to that statutory framework.
TaxTMI 
