<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (12) TMI 452 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104058</link>
    <description>A securities regulator may issue provisional directions to retain and impound proceeds from auction or close-out transactions where interim action is needed to preserve disputed funds and prevent frustration of inquiry. Such directions were treated as remedial steps in aid of investor protection, not punitive confiscation, and the statutory scheme did not require a pre-decisional hearing at that stage where later opportunity was available. The directions were also held not to offend Article 300A because they rested on statutory authority and operated only as a temporary restraint. The challenge based on unjust enrichment failed, and the single judge&#039;s order quashing the interim directions was set aside, with one matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:54:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 452 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104058</link>
      <description>A securities regulator may issue provisional directions to retain and impound proceeds from auction or close-out transactions where interim action is needed to preserve disputed funds and prevent frustration of inquiry. Such directions were treated as remedial steps in aid of investor protection, not punitive confiscation, and the statutory scheme did not require a pre-decisional hearing at that stage where later opportunity was available. The directions were also held not to offend Article 300A because they rested on statutory authority and operated only as a temporary restraint. The challenge based on unjust enrichment failed, and the single judge&#039;s order quashing the interim directions was set aside, with one matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>