<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (7) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425219</link>
    <description>The court upheld SEBI&#039;s authority to investigate transactions pre-2002 amendment, affirmed Section 11-C&#039;s applicability to individual investors, and allowed retrospective application of Section 11-C. Writ petitions were deemed not maintainable as statutory remedies were not exhausted, and the word &quot;or&quot; in Section 11-C(1)(a) and (b) was interpreted disjunctively. As a result, the writ appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2022 09:21:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425219</link>
      <description>The court upheld SEBI&#039;s authority to investigate transactions pre-2002 amendment, affirmed Section 11-C&#039;s applicability to individual investors, and allowed retrospective application of Section 11-C. Writ petitions were deemed not maintainable as statutory remedies were not exhausted, and the word &quot;or&quot; in Section 11-C(1)(a) and (b) was interpreted disjunctively. As a result, the writ appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>