https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460269 The Tripura High Court noted that writ petitions challenging restraint orders were not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal existed and the petitioners had not used it, especially because the dispute depended on contested facts requiring fact-finding. It further found no material showing lawful registration, sanction, approval, or licence to collect public deposits, so the petitioners could not claim immunity under the RBI Act, the Companies Act, or the SEBI Act, and the State authority remained competent to restrain the activity. The Court also held that while parallel or conflicting State action should not continue when SEBI proceedings are already pending, the impugned orders were not interfered with. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460269 The Tripura High Court noted that writ petitions challenging restraint orders were not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal existed and the petitioners had not used it, especially because the dispute depended on contested facts requiring fact-finding. It further found no material showing lawful registration, sanction, approval, or licence to collect public deposits, so the petitioners could not claim immunity under the RBI Act, the Companies Act, or the SEBI Act, and the State authority remained competent to restrain the activity. The Court also held that while parallel or conflicting State action should not continue when SEBI proceedings are already pending, the impugned orders were not interfered with. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460269