https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194895 Prosecution under sections 24 and 26 of the SEBI Act was treated as an independent statutory remedy and was not stayed merely because adjudication or appeal was pending. The tribunal noted that section 27 protects directors and officers by requiring proof that they were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's conduct, or that they consented to, connived in, or neglected the default, and it also allows a defence of lack of knowledge or due diligence. Applying the interim relief test, it found no strong prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable injury. Interim stay was refused and the prosecution direction remained operative. en-us Mon, 21 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194895 Prosecution under sections 24 and 26 of the SEBI Act was treated as an independent statutory remedy and was not stayed merely because adjudication or appeal was pending. The tribunal noted that section 27 protects directors and officers by requiring proof that they were in charge of, and responsible for, the company's conduct, or that they consented to, connived in, or neglected the default, and it also allows a defence of lack of knowledge or due diligence. Applying the interim relief test, it found no strong prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable injury. Interim stay was refused and the prosecution direction remained operative. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194895