https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260334 In writ jurisdiction, mandamus was not available to compel SEBI to order an investigation into a proposed delisting or to restrain further steps on disputed factual allegations about trading volume, public shareholding and employee trust control. The Court held that SEBI's power to investigate under the 2003 Regulations is discretionary and cannot be converted into a mandatory duty merely because a representation is made; such disputed matters were unsuitable for summary judicial review. SEBI was only directed to consider the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time, and the petitioners remained free to pursue further remedies if required. en-us Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2015 07:28:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260334 In writ jurisdiction, mandamus was not available to compel SEBI to order an investigation into a proposed delisting or to restrain further steps on disputed factual allegations about trading volume, public shareholding and employee trust control. The Court held that SEBI's power to investigate under the 2003 Regulations is discretionary and cannot be converted into a mandatory duty merely because a representation is made; such disputed matters were unsuitable for summary judicial review. SEBI was only directed to consider the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time, and the petitioners remained free to pursue further remedies if required. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260334