https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795720 Suspension of securities-law sentences pending appeal was considered appropriate because the applications raised arguable issues on repeated prosecution based on the same summons, the punishment applicable to an alleged 1998 contravention, the permissible fine where no statutory maximum exists, and whether the applicants were company directors. The pre-2002 penalty framework and the disputed directorial status supported interim protection. The notes also state that a fine without a prescribed maximum could not be exorbitant. The sentences were suspended pending appeal. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2026 14:14:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795720 Suspension of securities-law sentences pending appeal was considered appropriate because the applications raised arguable issues on repeated prosecution based on the same summons, the punishment applicable to an alleged 1998 contravention, the permissible fine where no statutory maximum exists, and whether the applicants were company directors. The pre-2002 penalty framework and the disputed directorial status supported interim protection. The notes also state that a fine without a prescribed maximum could not be exorbitant. The sentences were suspended pending appeal. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795720