https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103833 The High Court held that territorial jurisdiction existed because a part of the cause of action arose at Ahmedabad, including investigation, receipt of documents, the petitioners' office connection, and service of the impugned orders. It further held that SEBI's powers under the SEBI Act, 1992 and the 1995 Regulations did not authorise impounding or forfeiture of consideration already accrued on completed securities transactions; those provisions permitted regulatory directions and restoration of status quo ante, not deprivation of property without express statutory authority. The Court also found the orders invalid for breach of natural justice because no prior hearing was given, and post-decisional hearing could not cure that defect. Unjust enrichment did not bar relief. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:23:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103833 The High Court held that territorial jurisdiction existed because a part of the cause of action arose at Ahmedabad, including investigation, receipt of documents, the petitioners' office connection, and service of the impugned orders. It further held that SEBI's powers under the SEBI Act, 1992 and the 1995 Regulations did not authorise impounding or forfeiture of consideration already accrued on completed securities transactions; those provisions permitted regulatory directions and restoration of status quo ante, not deprivation of property without express statutory authority. The Court also found the orders invalid for breach of natural justice because no prior hearing was given, and post-decisional hearing could not cure that defect. Unjust enrichment did not bar relief. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103833