https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196654 Where the record disclosed a prima facie unregistered collective investment scheme, the HC declined to exercise Article 226 discretion to order unsealing of the business premises, return of seized documents, or permission to operate the bank account. The Court noted that SEBI notices and the show-cause process were based on complaints and business records indicating pooling of investor funds, absence of day-to-day investor control, and operation without the registration required under the SEBI Act and CIS Regulations. Relief that would have enabled continuation of the disputed activity was refused, and SEBI was directed to complete the inquiry and pass orders within six weeks. en-us Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:15:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196654 Where the record disclosed a prima facie unregistered collective investment scheme, the HC declined to exercise Article 226 discretion to order unsealing of the business premises, return of seized documents, or permission to operate the bank account. The Court noted that SEBI notices and the show-cause process were based on complaints and business records indicating pooling of investor funds, absence of day-to-day investor control, and operation without the registration required under the SEBI Act and CIS Regulations. Relief that would have enabled continuation of the disputed activity was refused, and SEBI was directed to complete the inquiry and pass orders within six weeks. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196654