https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111276 Civil court jurisdiction over a money recovery suit arising from securities transactions was not excluded by the SEBI Act, 1992 or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, because those enactments principally provide a regulatory and penal framework and do not create a complete adjudicatory mechanism for such a civil dispute. The Court held that exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred and that the saving provision preserves ordinary civil remedies where the special statute does not expressly or by necessary implication bar them. The plaint therefore could not be rejected on the ground of statutory ouster, and the suit was directed to proceed on merits. en-us Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:50:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111276 Civil court jurisdiction over a money recovery suit arising from securities transactions was not excluded by the SEBI Act, 1992 or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, because those enactments principally provide a regulatory and penal framework and do not create a complete adjudicatory mechanism for such a civil dispute. The Court held that exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred and that the saving provision preserves ordinary civil remedies where the special statute does not expressly or by necessary implication bar them. The plaint therefore could not be rejected on the ground of statutory ouster, and the suit was directed to proceed on merits. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111276