https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231289 The High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to hear the complainant's submissions but only to present its own before SEBI. The court determined SEBI's inquiry was inquisitorial, not adjudicatory, and found SEBI had reasonable grounds to believe an investigation was warranted, with the reasons being relevant and material. The court rejected claims of jurisdictional overreach and breach of natural justice, affirming SEBI's jurisdiction over Sudipti in relation to DLF's disclosure obligations. Costs of Rs. 2 lacs were imposed on the petitioner, to be equally shared between SEBI and respondent no.2. en-us Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231289 The High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to hear the complainant's submissions but only to present its own before SEBI. The court determined SEBI's inquiry was inquisitorial, not adjudicatory, and found SEBI had reasonable grounds to believe an investigation was warranted, with the reasons being relevant and material. The court rejected claims of jurisdictional overreach and breach of natural justice, affirming SEBI's jurisdiction over Sudipti in relation to DLF's disclosure obligations. Costs of Rs. 2 lacs were imposed on the petitioner, to be equally shared between SEBI and respondent no.2. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=231289