https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109281 The High Court held territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging SEBI's order. It determined that PGFL's business activities qualified as a "collective investment scheme" under section 11AA of the SEBI Act, aimed at investor protection. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 11AA, emphasizing Parliament's legislative competence in matters of investor safeguarding. The writ petition was dismissed, instructing PGFL to refund investors within two months and provide documentation to SEBI for follow-up actions. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109281 The High Court held territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging SEBI's order. It determined that PGFL's business activities qualified as a "collective investment scheme" under section 11AA of the SEBI Act, aimed at investor protection. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of section 11AA, emphasizing Parliament's legislative competence in matters of investor safeguarding. The writ petition was dismissed, instructing PGFL to refund investors within two months and provide documentation to SEBI for follow-up actions. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109281