https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213903 A writ of prohibition was held to be unavailable where the alleged jurisdictional defect turned on statutory interpretation that the regulator had to examine first. The court considered the securities regulator's powers under sections 11, 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, in relation to refund and interest obligations arising from a failed public issue, and held that the question whether an unlisted company fell within that regulatory reach required prior consideration by the authority. The show-cause notice was not quashed at the threshold, the regulator was not found to lack inherent jurisdiction, and the petitioner was directed to raise objections before the authority for decision under the applicable framework. en-us Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213903 A writ of prohibition was held to be unavailable where the alleged jurisdictional defect turned on statutory interpretation that the regulator had to examine first. The court considered the securities regulator's powers under sections 11, 11A and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, in relation to refund and interest obligations arising from a failed public issue, and held that the question whether an unlisted company fell within that regulatory reach required prior consideration by the authority. The show-cause notice was not quashed at the threshold, the regulator was not found to lack inherent jurisdiction, and the petitioner was directed to raise objections before the authority for decision under the applicable framework. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213903