<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1212 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775144</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC dismissed petitions challenging SEBI show cause notices (SCNs) for alleged PFUTP violations. Petitioners argued the SCNs were barred by res judicata as earlier SCNs on same allegations were adjudicated, and sought preliminary determination of jurisdictional challenges. The HC held that petitioners were attempting to delay proceedings through successive challenges rather than simultaneous ones, filing petitions nearly two years after SCNs were issued. The court noted that new reports (ISB, Deloitte, E&amp;amp;Y) were unavailable during earlier proceedings, distinguishing the current SCNs. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the HC ruled that mixed questions of law and fact involving res judicata need not be decided as preliminary issues. The court refused to treat jurisdictional and res judicata challenges as preliminary issues, directing the Quasi-Judicial Authority to decide all issues simultaneously and expeditiously without being influenced by the court&#039;s observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:43:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1212 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775144</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC dismissed petitions challenging SEBI show cause notices (SCNs) for alleged PFUTP violations. Petitioners argued the SCNs were barred by res judicata as earlier SCNs on same allegations were adjudicated, and sought preliminary determination of jurisdictional challenges. The HC held that petitioners were attempting to delay proceedings through successive challenges rather than simultaneous ones, filing petitions nearly two years after SCNs were issued. The court noted that new reports (ISB, Deloitte, E&amp;amp;Y) were unavailable during earlier proceedings, distinguishing the current SCNs. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the HC ruled that mixed questions of law and fact involving res judicata need not be decided as preliminary issues. The court refused to treat jurisdictional and res judicata challenges as preliminary issues, directing the Quasi-Judicial Authority to decide all issues simultaneously and expeditiously without being influenced by the court&#039;s observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>