https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438621 The court dismissed the appeal filed by SEBI challenging the setting aside of the summoning order against Mr. Arihant Jain. It was held that the complaint lacked specific material attributing responsibility to Mr. Jain for the alleged offenses of price rigging and insider trading by IHIL. The court emphasized that vicarious liability under Section 27 of the SEBI Act requires a director to be actively involved in the business conduct at the time of the offense, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the summoning order against Mr. Jain was set aside. en-us Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jun 2023 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438621 The court dismissed the appeal filed by SEBI challenging the setting aside of the summoning order against Mr. Arihant Jain. It was held that the complaint lacked specific material attributing responsibility to Mr. Jain for the alleged offenses of price rigging and insider trading by IHIL. The court emphasized that vicarious liability under Section 27 of the SEBI Act requires a director to be actively involved in the business conduct at the time of the offense, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the summoning order against Mr. Jain was set aside. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438621