https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459165 Allegations that securities were induced into a DEMAT account on assurances, dividends were paid for a period, and the securities were later not returned, together with claims of conspiracy, unauthorised sale and misappropriation, disclosed cognizable IPC offences and not a mere contractual dispute; quashing under writ jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted. The pendency of a SEBI investigation did not bar or displace criminal investigation into IPC offences arising from the same facts, because SEBI's jurisdiction is confined to violations of the SEBI Act and the rules and regulations made under it. The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:05:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459165 Allegations that securities were induced into a DEMAT account on assurances, dividends were paid for a period, and the securities were later not returned, together with claims of conspiracy, unauthorised sale and misappropriation, disclosed cognizable IPC offences and not a mere contractual dispute; quashing under writ jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted. The pendency of a SEBI investigation did not bar or displace criminal investigation into IPC offences arising from the same facts, because SEBI's jurisdiction is confined to violations of the SEBI Act and the rules and regulations made under it. The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459165