https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783348 Rule 3 of the SEBI Adjudication Rules makes the Board's prior opinion a trigger for appointing an Adjudicating Officer, but that appointment is only an administrative step and the finding of contravention and penalty liability arises later in the inquiry under Rules 4 and 5. The Delhi HC therefore held that the challenge to the appointment and show cause notice failed. It also held that Regulation 14 of the PIT Regulations is an additional remedy and does not operate as a condition precedent to proceedings under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act; no prior order under that Regulation was required. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783348 Rule 3 of the SEBI Adjudication Rules makes the Board's prior opinion a trigger for appointing an Adjudicating Officer, but that appointment is only an administrative step and the finding of contravention and penalty liability arises later in the inquiry under Rules 4 and 5. The Delhi HC therefore held that the challenge to the appointment and show cause notice failed. It also held that Regulation 14 of the PIT Regulations is an additional remedy and does not operate as a condition precedent to proceedings under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act; no prior order under that Regulation was required. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783348