https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296352 Show-cause notices issued by SEBI were not liable to be quashed at the threshold where complaints and a preliminary enquiry disclosed a prima facie basis for inquiry. The Court held that delay in calling for information did not, by itself, cause prejudice when the information was expected to be maintained in statutory records, and the existence of jurisdictional facts could not be negated at the notice stage. It further treated the writ petition as premature because the matter was still pending before the authority, and interference under Article 226 was unwarranted in the absence of a clear lack of jurisdiction or other exceptional ground. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jul 2021 18:03:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296352 Show-cause notices issued by SEBI were not liable to be quashed at the threshold where complaints and a preliminary enquiry disclosed a prima facie basis for inquiry. The Court held that delay in calling for information did not, by itself, cause prejudice when the information was expected to be maintained in statutory records, and the existence of jurisdictional facts could not be negated at the notice stage. It further treated the writ petition as premature because the matter was still pending before the authority, and interference under Article 226 was unwarranted in the absence of a clear lack of jurisdiction or other exceptional ground. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296352