https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396184 The court held that the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP) lacked jurisdiction to re-examine a complaint previously deemed 'NIL,' citing the doctrine of finality of litigation. The court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the IGRP's jurisdiction, emphasizing that the availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude Writ Jurisdiction. It recognized IGRP proceedings as adjudicatory, rejecting the notion that re-examination would not prejudice the Petitioner. The court underscored the importance of finality in decisions and barred re-litigation without specific provisions. It quashed the re-examination suggestion, restraining further proceedings unless the IGRM was amended. en-us Mon, 01 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396184 The court held that the Investor Grievance Redressal Panel (IGRP) lacked jurisdiction to re-examine a complaint previously deemed 'NIL,' citing the doctrine of finality of litigation. The court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the IGRP's jurisdiction, emphasizing that the availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude Writ Jurisdiction. It recognized IGRP proceedings as adjudicatory, rejecting the notion that re-examination would not prejudice the Petitioner. The court underscored the importance of finality in decisions and barred re-litigation without specific provisions. It quashed the re-examination suggestion, restraining further proceedings unless the IGRM was amended. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 01 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396184