https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196196 SEBI's restraint power under Sections 11 and 11B was described as a valid market-protection measure, and the challenge based on arbitrariness, Article 19(1)(g), and parallel enquiry and adjudication proceedings was rejected because those proceedings were independent and not undermined by the restraint order. The broker's margin practices were treated as impermissible where client trading proceeded without prior margin and funds or securities of one client were used to cover another's exposure, creating prima facie market risk and justifying intervention. The discrimination plea also failed because the cited comparators were factually different and, in some cases, only subject to interim orders. The restraint order was therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Nov 2017 17:55:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196196 SEBI's restraint power under Sections 11 and 11B was described as a valid market-protection measure, and the challenge based on arbitrariness, Article 19(1)(g), and parallel enquiry and adjudication proceedings was rejected because those proceedings were independent and not undermined by the restraint order. The broker's margin practices were treated as impermissible where client trading proceeded without prior margin and funds or securities of one client were used to cover another's exposure, creating prima facie market risk and justifying intervention. The discrimination plea also failed because the cited comparators were factually different and, in some cases, only subject to interim orders. The restraint order was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196196