https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80786 Criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent activities in an IPO were challenged. The validity hinged on whether a Single Judge or Division Bench should hear the case after SEBI settlement. The Supreme Court held that since a previous Division Bench had rejected the respondent's contentions, the present matter should have been heard by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. The court refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudicing parties. It set aside the Single Judge's order quashing proceedings post-SEBI settlement and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court's Division Bench for an independent decision on quashing, uninfluenced by previous orders. An interim stay on further proceedings was granted for four weeks, with liberty to seek extension/modification from the Division Bench, which must dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:18:59 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:18:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80786 Criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent activities in an IPO were challenged. The validity hinged on whether a Single Judge or Division Bench should hear the case after SEBI settlement. The Supreme Court held that since a previous Division Bench had rejected the respondent's contentions, the present matter should have been heard by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. The court refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudicing parties. It set aside the Single Judge's order quashing proceedings post-SEBI settlement and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court's Division Bench for an independent decision on quashing, uninfluenced by previous orders. An interim stay on further proceedings was granted for four weeks, with liberty to seek extension/modification from the Division Bench, which must dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months. Highlights SEBI Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:18:59 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80786