https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465126 The SEBI Board held that the bank, as Noticee, violated the binding Interim Order by invoking the pledge over securities in the stock broker's client demat accounts after suspension, thereby defeating regulatory directions protecting client assets. The Board rejected the bank's reliance on a legal opinion and on representations that the broker was absolute owner, holding that no unilateral recovery could override SEBI's operative directions. The bank's conduct was characterised as conscious avoidance and ex-facie defiance of a lawful regulatory order. SEBI directed the bank to deposit an equivalent amount with 7% interest in an interest-bearing escrow account and imposed a monetary penalty under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Dec 2025 20:06:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465126 The SEBI Board held that the bank, as Noticee, violated the binding Interim Order by invoking the pledge over securities in the stock broker's client demat accounts after suspension, thereby defeating regulatory directions protecting client assets. The Board rejected the bank's reliance on a legal opinion and on representations that the broker was absolute owner, holding that no unilateral recovery could override SEBI's operative directions. The bank's conduct was characterised as conscious avoidance and ex-facie defiance of a lawful regulatory order. SEBI directed the bank to deposit an equivalent amount with 7% interest in an interest-bearing escrow account and imposed a monetary penalty under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465126