<?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>2023 (1) TMI 458 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432711</link>
    <description>Section 11C of the SEBI Act empowers investigation on reasonable grounds through summons, document production and examination on oath as inquisitorial tools for fact-finding before adjudication. Those requirements do not, by themselves, create civil consequences, and any penal consequence for non-cooperation arises only after failure without reasonable cause and proceedings before the competent criminal court. On that basis, the investigative scheme was treated as containing adequate safeguards and was held not to infringe Articles 19(1)(a), 20(3) or 21. The summons for personal appearance were therefore sustained, and the request for police action was not entertained in light of alternate remedies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2023 11:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=701425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 458 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432711</link>
      <description>Section 11C of the SEBI Act empowers investigation on reasonable grounds through summons, document production and examination on oath as inquisitorial tools for fact-finding before adjudication. Those requirements do not, by themselves, create civil consequences, and any penal consequence for non-cooperation arises only after failure without reasonable cause and proceedings before the competent criminal court. On that basis, the investigative scheme was treated as containing adequate safeguards and was held not to infringe Articles 19(1)(a), 20(3) or 21. The summons for personal appearance were therefore sustained, and the request for police action was not entertained in light of alternate remedies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>