https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763035 SEBI communications that merely expressed an opinion on the interaction between Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the non-obstante clauses in Sections 26E and 35 vis-a -vis Section 28A(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992 were not treated as adjudicatory orders. A writ petition was therefore not considered the proper remedy to challenge the correctness of that opinion in a private communication. As the grievance was substantially directed against the consequential SEBI order dated 11 January 2023, the statutory appellate remedy under Section 15-T of the SEBI Act, 1992 was held to be available. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:55:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763035 SEBI communications that merely expressed an opinion on the interaction between Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the non-obstante clauses in Sections 26E and 35 vis-a -vis Section 28A(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992 were not treated as adjudicatory orders. A writ petition was therefore not considered the proper remedy to challenge the correctness of that opinion in a private communication. As the grievance was substantially directed against the consequential SEBI order dated 11 January 2023, the statutory appellate remedy under Section 15-T of the SEBI Act, 1992 was held to be available. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 04 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763035