Landmark Judgments on SEBI by Supreme Court of India

Landmark Judgments on SEBI by Supreme Court of India

There are several landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India regarding the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which is the regulatory authority overseeing the securities market in India. Some of these landmark judgments include:

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Others (2012): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled against Sahara Group and directed it to refund around ₹24,000 crore to its investors. This judgment had significant implications for SEBI’s role in investor protection and regulating collective investment schemes.
2. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Pan Asia Advisors Ltd. & Others (2015): This judgment dealt with insider trading regulations. The Supreme Court clarified and reinforced SEBI’s authority to regulate insider trading and upheld SEBI’s regulations in this regard.
3. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Price Waterhouse Coopers (2018): This case involved the role of auditors in corporate governance and their liability in cases of financial fraud. The Supreme Court upheld SEBI’s ban on Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) entities from auditing listed companies for a specified period. This judgment underscored SEBI’s efforts to strengthen corporate governance standards.
4. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court clarified SEBI’s jurisdiction over fraudulent and unfair trade practices in the securities market. The judgment reinforced SEBI’s authority to take action against entities engaged in market manipulation and fraudulent activities.
5. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Amit Kumar Singh (2020): This judgment highlighted SEBI’s powers to penalize individuals for violations of securities laws. The Supreme Court upheld SEBI’s order imposing penalties on an individual for insider trading activities, emphasizing the importance of strict enforcement of securities regulations.

These landmark judgments have played a crucial role in shaping the legal framework governing the securities market in India and defining SEBI’s regulatory powers and responsibilities. However, it’s essential to note that there may have been further developments or additional landmark judgments since my last update, so it’s advisable to consult more recent sources for the latest information.

The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments that have shaped the powers and functions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Here are some notable examples:

• SEBI’s Authority and Power: The court has upheld SEBI’s role as the final authority in deciding securities violations and related matters. This strengthens SEBI’s role in ensuring corporate governance and market regulations [SC judgment gives Sebi final say on securities violations: Law firms – Business Standard].
• Scope of SEBI’s Powers: While upholding SEBI’s authority, the court has also cautioned against a “hyper-technical” approach. For instance, in a specific case, a penalty imposed for a minor technicality related to voting rights was struck down [10 Landmark Corporate and Securities Case Laws | 2022 | Expert Analysis and Explanations – Taxmann].
• Appellate Jurisdiction: The court has clarified the extent of its own appellate jurisdiction over SEBI’s decisions. Generally, appeals are restricted to questions of law, not factual determinations made by SEBI [Landmark Judgments on SEBI By Supreme Court & High Courts in 2022 PART I].
• SEBI’s Delegated Powers: The court has validated SEBI’s delegation of adjudicatory and quasi-judicial functions to its full-time board members [Landmark Judgments on SEBI By Supreme Court & High Courts in 2022 PART I].

These are just a few examples, and you can find a more exhaustive list of SEBI-related judgments.

1	Vishal Tiwari Vs Union of India & Ors – [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1712024 INSC 3 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,Manoj Misra,J.B. PARDIWALA the Adani group alleging that the Adani group manipulated its share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of the regulations framed by SEBI – Petitioners sought constitution of expert Committee and transfer of from SEBI to Special Investigation Team or by the CBI: Held: Power of this Court to enter the regulatory domain of SEBI in framing delegated legislation is limited – Court must refrain from substituting its own wisdom over the regulatory policies of SEBI – No apparent regulatory Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/162/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
2	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. & ANR Vs M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD. & ANR. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 8212023 INSC 1059 Judge : Sanjay Karol,ABHAY S. OKA (2021) 12 SCC 812; Madras Aluminium Co Ltd v. Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board, (2023) 8 SCC 240; SEBI v. Bhavesh Pabari, (2019) 5 SCC 90; Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., [1999] 2 SCR 505 : (1999) 6 SCC 82 – relied on. Nahar Industrial prescribe a limitation, the rights conferred therein must be exercised within reasonable time. 23.3 This aspect of reasonable time was recently discussed by this Court in Madras Aluminium Co Ltd v. Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board32, having referred a three-Judge Bench decision in SEBI Decision Date : 11-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2669/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
3	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF Vs M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2023] 15 S.C.R. 9842023 INSC 949 Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,Prashant Kumar Mishra supplied) 19. Neena Aneja and Another v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 161, “58. SEBI argued before this Court that a change of the forum for trial was a matter of mere procedure and would, therefore, be retrospective, MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF v. M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. (1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087], and observed in that context : (Classic Credit case [ SEBI v. Classic Credit Ltd., (2018) 13 SCC 1 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 431], SCC pp. 67-68, para 49) “49. … In our considered view, the legal position expounded by this Court in a large number of Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6933/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
4	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CBI Vs R.R. KISHORE – [2023] 13 S.C.R. 12023 INSC 817 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,VIKRAM NATH,SANJIV KHANNA,ABHAY S. OKA India of the level equivalent to Joint Secretary of above in the Central Government, 27 Executive Directors and above of the SEBI and Chairman & Managing Director and Executive Directors and such of the Bank offi cers who are one level below the Board of Nationalised Banks), there should would apply to all actions, pending as well as future and no procedural amendment could be said to be creating an off ence; and, accordingly, disagreed with the view of the Appellate Tribunal, and upheld the order passed by the Chairman, SEBI that retrospective insertion of Section 11B of Decision Date : 11-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/377/2007 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matters be placed before appropriate Bench
5	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SIVANANDAN C T AND OTHERS Vs HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS – [2023] 11 S.C.R. 6742023 INSC 709 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,Pankaj Mithal,Manoj Misra,HRISHIKESH ROY HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381: [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 512; State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics 2020 SCC OnLine SC 968; SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan (2023) 2 SCC 643 – relied on. Sivanandan C T v. High Court of Kerala (2018) 1 SCC fairness by stabilizing the expectations of citizens from public authorities. This was also considered in a recent decision of this Court in SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan,32 where it was observed that regularity and predictability are hall-marks of good regulation and governance.33 This Decision Date : 12-07-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/229/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
6	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAI Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 5652023 INSC 509 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,Sanjay Kumar company is a Foreign Institutional Investor and was permitted by Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ‘ SEBI ’) to buy and sell shares and securities in the Indian Stock Market. However, due to certain litigations, the appellant company had quit trading in the Indian markets in 2006. Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1434/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
7	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP & ANR – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 9492023 INSC 484 Judge : M.M. SUNDRESH,M.R. SHAH of India (2019) 5 SCC 480 : [2019] 6 SCR 307; SEBI v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan (2023) 2 SCC 643; Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay [1955] 1 SCR 158; Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Anr v. UOI (2017) 5 SCC 598 : [2017] 2 SCR 993; Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. 770 : [1975] 3 SCR 958; Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons (2007) 8 SCC 559 : [2007] 10 SCR 656; Arun Kumar v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 732 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 290; Balram Garg v. SEBI (2022) 9 SCC 425; Serious Fraud Investigation Office v Rahul Modi (2019) 5 SCC 266 : [2019] Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2305/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
8	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer PRAKASH AGGARWAL Vs GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 8442023 INSC 464 Judge : VIKRAM NATH,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI 1992 (for short, “ SEBI Act”) against accused Nos. 1 to 4. 3.14. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed Criminal Revision Application being No.128 of 2017 before the Court of Sessions, Dindoshi, Mumbai. Vide order dated 2nd December 2019, the said was partly allowed. Insofar as the process issued against accused No.1 Company, it was completely quashed and set aside, whereas, the issuance of process against accused Nos. 2 to 4 was set aside only under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 15-HA of the SEBI Act. However, issuance Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1308/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
9	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL Vs THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 4612023 INSC 408 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,Pankaj Mithal Securities and Exchange Board of India2. SEBI passed an Order dated 14.07.2020 holding that there were violations of various provisions of Securities and Exchange Board 1 hereinafter referred to as “Farmax” 2 For Short “ SEBI ” A B C D E F G H 463 of India Act, 1992 and various regulations Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. More particularly, SEBI found one Mr. Arun Panchariya and a few others guilty of misleading Indian investors through 14 identical GDR issues Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1198/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
10	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6, BANGALORE – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 4302023 INSC 394 Judge : M.R. SHAH,M.M. SUNDRESH Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 549; G. L. Sutania and Anr v. SEBI and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 133 : [2007] 6 SCR 1152 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2010] 14 SCR 499 referred to Para 3.4 [1962] Suppl. SCR 549 referred to Para 3.4 [2007] 6 SCR 1152 determination of a statistical sample of comparables. Under Section 92C(2) of the IT Act, Arm’s Length Price is always in a range. It is not a science but it is an art. This Court in G.L. Sutania and Anr v SEBI and Ors. reported in 2007 (5) SCC 133 at paras 84 and 85, have unequivocally Decision Date : 19-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8463/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
11	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. Vs M/s. SAW PIPES LTD. – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 4792023 INSC 376 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,M.R. SHAH an interpretation has been made having regard to the tenor of Sections 45 and 47 of the Act, 1969 and the language used therein. [Para 6.12][502-B-C] Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 361; Competition Commission of India v. Thomas Cook (India) Limited and the cases of State of Gujarat Vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited; (2022) 6 SCC 459andChairman, SEBI Vs. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr.; (2006) 5 SCC 361; Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (2007) 7 SCC 269; Competition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3481/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
12	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer PINAK PANI MOHANTY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 7782023 INSC 320 Judge : M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR an amount of Rs. 5,000 crores out of unutilized amount of Rs. 23,937 crores (lying in “Sahara- SEBI Refund Account) to be disbursed against the legitimate dues of depositors of Sahara Group of Cooperatives Societies – Held: The amount lying in the “Sahara- SEBI Refund Account” is unutilized SEBI Refund Account”) to be disbursed against the legitimate dues of depositors of Sahara Group Cooperatives Societies. 2. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General has submitted that a total amount of Rs. 24,979.67 Crores is lying unutilized with the SEBI in “Sahara- SEBI Refund Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/191/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
13	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTRI FINANCE LIMITED) Vs THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 7372023 INSC 262 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,AJAY RASTOGI conversion of membership to a corporate entity and membership of the old entity, i.e., M/s. Govind Prasad Shrikant & Co. ( SEBI Registration No. INB030054715) was converted into a corporate entity w.e.f. 1st April, 1998. Accordingly, the appellant fulfils the pre-conditions as indicated in para 4 EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [AJAY RASTOGI, J.] A B C D E F G H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed in terms of Part Decision Date : 20-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2402/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
14	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer VISHAL TIWARI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 9512023 INSC 191 Judge : J.B. PARDIWALA,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD Hidenburg Reasearch in which it was alleged that the Adani Group of Companies has manipulated its share prices and also has failed to disclose the transaction with related parties in contravention of the regulations framed by SEBI – The report alleges that company has violated other provision securities laws – Hindenburg Research has taken a short position in the Adani Group companies through US traded bonds and non-Indian traded derivative instruments – SEBI had started the investigation, the Court directed it to extend the scope of its investigation which should include investigation Decision Date : 02-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/162/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
15	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs V SHANKAR – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 4192023 INSC 719 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA,J.B. PARDIWALA AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v. V SHANKAR (Civil Appeal No. 527 of 2023) FEBRUARY 08, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND J B PARDIWALA, JJ.] SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998 – – Interpretation of – Notice to show cause was issued by the Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (DCHL), its Chairperson, Vice-chairperson and Company Secretary-respondent herein – A penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed on the respondent – Respondent was held liable Decision Date : 08-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/527/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
16	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          తెలుగు – Telugu Disclaimer IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs SICGIL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5272023 INSC 9 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA violation of the SEBI (PIT) Regulations and the SEBI (SAST) Regulations and directed the appellant to buy back its shares which were held by the respondent – However, the appellate court set aside this direction on the ground that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction – On appeal, held: Appellant is justified in invoking the jurisdiction of the CLB (now NCLT) u/s. 111A for violation of SEBI regulations – Rectificatory jurisdiction u/s. 59 is summary in nature and cannot be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions – If a petition seeks an adjudication under the garb Decision Date : 04-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2030/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
17	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CDR AMIT KUMAR SHARMA ETC Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS ETC – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 6252022 INSC 1124 Judge : HIMA KOHLI,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD all relevant information must be disclosed. In this case, the issue for consideration before this Court was whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations 12 Civil Appeal Nos. 487-488 of must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued. SEBI had not disclosed the investigation report. It was the contention of SEBI that it had not relied on the investigation report to issue the show cause notice. The two Judge Bench observed Decision Date : 20-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/841/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
18	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II Vs M/S BPL LIMITED – [2022] 14 S.C.R. 9382022 INSC 1077 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,J.K. MAHESHWARI shares were under a lock-in period up to 16th November 1993 and 25th May 1994 respectively – In the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that the equity shares under the lock-in period were not ‘quoted shares’ – A general circular issued by SEBI however stated that shares under the by the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ), there is a complete bar on transfer, which is enforced by inscribing the words “not transferable” in the relevant share certificates. This position is accepted by the A B C D E F G H 941 Revenue, which, however, has relied upon Decision Date : 13-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3265/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
19	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR – [2022] 14 S.C.R. 9112022 INSC 1076 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,B.V. NAGARATHNA of s.12(1), a single registration with SEBI is sufficient even if the stock broker has various memberships and functions from several stock exchanges and, therefore, will have to pay the fee for the initial registration with SEBI – Held: The conjoint reading of the expression “a certificate” referred to in s.12(1) of the Act, 1992 read with the scheme of Rules, 1992 and Regulations, 1992, leads to an inevitable conclusion that the stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has Decision Date : 13-10-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/435/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/s. DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED Vs OSCAR INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 11 S.C.R. 10202022 INSC 994 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,K.M. JOSEPH,INDIRA BANERJEE Vol.67 @ Pg.98 14.03.2019 SEBI passed an order consequent to an independent investigation which found large scale diversion of funds from the REL and its subsidiaries at the behest of promoters. REL and RFL directed to recall the loans and take recovery steps for entities belonging Decision Date : 22-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/20417/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
21	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs ABHIJIT RAJAN – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 6692022 INSC 979 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,INDIRA BANERJEE 32 and 33][686-C-E] 5. The contention of the appellant that SEBI took note of the situation in which the respondent was placed and the dire need that he had to sell the shares and that therefore SEBI confined the final order only to disgorgement, is neither here nor there. This argument shares held by him in GIPL would not fall within the mischief of insider trading, as it was somewhat similar to a distress sale, made before the information could have a positive impact on the price of the shares. [Paras 44][689-D-E] Chintalapati Raju v. SEBI (2018) 7 SCC 443 : [2018] 5 SCR Decision Date : 19-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/563/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
22	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KAVI ARORA Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 3232022 INSC 959 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,INDIRA BANERJEE (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 – rr.3, 4 – Show Cause Notice was issued by Respondent- SEBI to the Petitioner, who was MD and CEO of one Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) [subsidiary of Religare Enterprises Ltd. (REL)], of funds from RFL through several layers of conduit entities for the ultimate benefit of promoters of REL and RFL – Writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking directions against SEBI , to furnish the documents relied upon by it in the Show Cause Notice – Petitioner also sought orders Decision Date : 14-09-2022 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/15149/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
23	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DKG BUILDCON PRIVATE LTD Vs THE ADJUDICATING & ENQUIRY OFFICER, S.E.B.I. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 2422022 INSC 960 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,AJAY RASTOGI India Act, 1992 – ss.11C (3), 15A(a), 15J –Penalty of rupees one crore levied by the Adjudicating Officer (AO), upheld by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) – Justification of – Held: Appellants had first violated the summons in August, 2001 and in June, 2002 – Thereafter, SEBI numerous summons, giving the appellants opportunities to appear and produce the documents and furnish the information as required – But, the appellants failed to respond to any of the summons issued during the period of 2001-2002, during the course of the investigation – Thereafter, SEBI that could be imposed under the provision, i.e. rupees one crore– Penalty of rupees one crore as levied by the AO and upheld by the SAT is justified–Further, investigation by SEBI which had concluded that the appellants and other entities were involved in aiding and abetting ‘KP’ and Decision Date : 14-09-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1742/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
24	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs RAJKUMAR NAGPAL & ORS – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 12022 INSC 885 Judge : A.S. BOPANNA,SURYA KANT,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD [2022] 15 S.C.R. 1 1 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v. RAJKUMAR NAGPAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5247 of 2022) AUGUST 30, 2022 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations 1993 – legal proceedings for recovery or insolvency – Thereafter, SEBI issued a circular dated 13 October 2020 providing ‘Standardisation of procedure to be followed by Debenture Trustee(s) in case of default by issuers of listed debt securities’ – Debenture Holders instituted a suit before the Decision Date : 30-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5247/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
25	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC. – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 8802022 INSC 829 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,SANJIV KHANNA TRUSTEE SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.] 2 For short, “Regulations’’ 3 For short, “ SEBI ” A B C D E F G H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. would be entitled to fees and expenses mentioned and covered by Regulation 52, as per the terms Decision Date : 12-08-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/498/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
26	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 7302022 INSC 796 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,J.K. MAHESHWARI,HIMA KOHLI of information by SEBI – SEBI directed to act fairly – Complaint was filed with SEBI against RIL & its associate companies and its directors alleging that they fraudulently allotted 12 crore equity shares of RIL to entities purportedly connected with RIL – Investigation Report submitted by the Investigating Authority on 04.02.2005 – SEBI in its counter affidavit admitted that the aforesaid report was inconclusive and recommended further enquiry in this regard – SEBI approached a retired judge in the year 2009 to give his opinion on the possibility of initiating Decision Date : 05-08-2022 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1167/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
27	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED Vs AXIS BANK LIMITED – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 1392022 INSC 710 Judge : J.K. MAHESHWARI,INDIRA BANERJEE ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule, vide Swedish Match AB v. SEBI Decision Date : 12-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4633/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
28	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 9872022 INSC 669 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,SANJIV KHANNA [2022] 18 S.C.R. 987 987 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v. SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8249 of 2013) JULY 11, 2022 [SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.] SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, –Regulation 10 – Interpretation of Regulation 10 of the SEBI Regulations, 1997 – Held: Regulation 10 states that no ‘acquirer’ shall acquire voting rights, which taken together with the shares or voting rights held by him or by a ‘person acting in concert’ would entitle the ‘acquirer’ Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8249/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
29	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED Vs PRADEEP SHANTIPERSHAD JAIN & ORS – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 4302022 INSC 685 Judge : M.R. SHAH,ANIRUDDHA BOSE 400: [2000] 3 SCR 172 – distinguished. A B C D E F G H 431 Welset Engineers & Anr. Vs. Vikas Auto Industries & Ors. (2015) 10 SCC 609; SEBI Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 429 – relied on. KK Modi Vs. KN Modi and Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 573 : [1998] 1 SCR Court in the case of Welset Engineers & Anr. Vs. Vikas Auto Industries & Ors.; (2015) 10 SCC 609 and in the case of SEBI Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors.; (2014) 5 SCC 429, non- compliance with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shakes the foundation of judicial Decision Date : 11-07-2022 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/624/2020 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
30	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer MBL AND COMPANY LIMITED Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 8172022 INSC 628 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,BELA M. TRIVEDI crores with SEBI , conditional upon which the order passed by the WTM was directed to remain stayed – On appeal, held: WTM while imposing an order of debarment, specifically applied its mind to the impact of manipulation of the price of scrips – Impact of a manipulation cannot be assessed in its proprietary account for a specified period, leaving it open to the appellant to continue operation in their broking account. [Para 14][826-B-C] Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Bhavesh Pabari (2019) 5 SCC 90; N. Narayanan v. SEBI (2013) 12 Decision Date : 26-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4262/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
31	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE AND OTHERS Vs SAHARA HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 10602022 INSC 627 Judge : BELA M. TRIVEDI,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD been highlighted by the senior counsel include the following: (i) The Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited has deposited an amount of Rs 24,000 crores with SEBI in pursuance of a judgment delivered by this Court in 2012; (ii) The provisions of Section 212 and Section 219 Decision Date : 26-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4299/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
32	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NEDUMPILLI FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs STATE OF KERALA & ORS. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 10052022 INSC 545 Judge : HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Merchant Banking companies, Venture Capital Fund Companies and the like are regulated by SEBI ; Nidhi companies and mutual benefit companies are regulated by the Ministry of Corporate affairs; Chit Fund companies are regulated by State Governments; and Insurance Companies are regulated by IRDA. Decision Date : 10-05-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5233/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
33	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. – [2022] 10 S.C.R. 4652022 INSC 465 Judge : SURYA KANT,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,BELA M. TRIVEDI other instrument governed by the guidelines and regulations of SEBI . Clause (v) states that money received in the ordinary course of business by way of security deposit, dealership deposit, earnest money or advance against an order of goods or services shall be excluded. The exclusions in of debenture, bond or any other instrument covered under the guidelines given, and regulations made, by the SEBI , established under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; (ii) amounts contributed as capital by partners of a firm; (iii) amounts received from a scheduled bank r Decision Date : 22-04-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2748/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
34	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BALRAM GARG Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 8882022 INSC 442 Judge : VINEET SARAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.[2022] 4 S.C.R. 888 888 BALRAM GARG v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 7054 OF 2021) APRIL 19, 2022 [VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] SEBI (Prevention of Insider Trading Regulations), – Regulation 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(f) – Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – ss.11(2)(g), 11(4), 12A(c), 15G and 15Z – Insider Trading – On receipt of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) – “Connected persons” and “immediate relatives” – Respondent/ SEBI alleging that P.C. Decision Date : 19-04-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7054/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
35	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs MEGA CORPORATION LIMITED – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 5462022 INSC 344 Judge : L. NAGESWARA RAO,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA of India Act, 1992 – ss 11, 11B, 19, 15T – SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 – Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) &(d) and 4(1), 4(2)k, 4(2)(r) – Listed Company – Unusual Surge in Profits – In the instant case the sudden upward spurt, SEBI carried out the investigation and after hearing the Company and other noticees, it held that the Company has violated the provisions of the Act and the PFUTP Regulations and hence restrained the Company from accessing the capital market in any manner and its directors Decision Date : 25-03-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2104/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
36	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HORTICULTURE EXPERIMENT STATION GONIKOPPAL, COORG Vs THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 4852022 INSC 223 Judge : ABHAY S. OKA,AJAY RASTOGI 110; Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Another (2006) 5 SCC 361 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 833; Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another (2007) 6 SCC 329 : [2007] 7 SCR 499 – referred to. Union of India and Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and requirement of law to be considered, while imposing damages like, in the instant case, under Section 14B of the Act 1952. In support of submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a two-Judge Bench judgment in Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Another5 which has been relied Decision Date : 23-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2136/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
37	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          मराठी – Marathi Disclaimer T. TAKANO Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 2122022 INSC 208 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,SANJIV KHANNA SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. T. TAKANO v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 487-488 of 2022) FEBRUARY 18, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 ( SEBI – ss. 11(1), 11(4), 11B, 11B(1), 11B(2), 11C and 15HA – SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations 2003 (PFUTP Regulations) – Regn. 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(k), 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 – Regn. 6 – Disclosure of investigation report – Appellant was as MD and CEO in a public listed company – Show cause notice issued to the appellant for violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act, SCRA and PFUTP Regulations – Show cause notice specifically relied upon the report of the investigation and invokes, inter alia, a violation of the Decision Date : 18-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/487/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
38	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Vs AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS – [2022] 9 S.C.R. 2932022 INSC 183 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,HIMA KOHLI,A.S. BOPANNA the parties, by which FRL was injuncted from taking any steps to materialize the deal, including injunction against proceedings before various Regulatory authorities – Meanwhile, CCI and SEBI approved the composite scheme proposed following the suit filed by the – Thereafter, appellant-FRL filed sanction of the composite scheme of arrangement under the provisions of ss.230 to 232 of the Companies Act before NCLT and the same was pending – Supreme Court in SLP(civil) No. 13556-57 of 2021 by an interim order directed all the authorities i.e. NCLT, CCI and SEBI Decision Date : 15-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/859/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
39	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Vs AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS. – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 2992022 INSC 129 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,A.S. BOPANNA,HIMA KOHLI REPORTS [2022] 12 S.C.R. 8. In the meanwhile, CCI and SEBI approved the composite Scheme proposed by FRL-Reliance. Thereafter, FRL filed for sanction of the composite Scheme of arrangement under the provisions of Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 before National Company and SEBI not to pass any final order for a period of four weeks from today. This order has been passed with the consent of both the parties. List these matters after four weeks.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. Thereafter, the applications filed by FRL and FCPL for vacating the award of the Decision Date : 01-02-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/859/2022 | Direction Issue : Matters remitted back
40	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BANK OF BARODA & ANR Vs MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED & ORS. – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 7612022 INSC 53 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,M.M. SUNDRESH disqualified under the Companies Act as a Director cannot apply and a person who is prohibited under the SEBI Act cannot apply. So these are statutory disqualifications. And there is also a disqualification in clause (c) with regard to those who are corporate debtors and who as on the date of Decision Date : 18-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8411/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
41	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 9132022 INSC 3 Judge : R. SUBHASH REDDY,HRISHIKESH ROY which were issued in public interest. In the case of Clariant International Ltd. Vs. SEBI , this court speaking through Justice S B Sinha held that two conditions need to be satisfied before awarding interest. First, that money should be wrongfully withheld from the rightful owners; Second, there should be equitable considerations for awarding said interest. In the case at hand, neither of these conditions are found to be satisfied. [Para 12][945-F-H] Clariant International Ltd. vs. SEBI (2004) 8 SCC 524 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 843 – referred to. 5.2 As per S. 34 of the Code of Decision Date : 03-01-2022 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/08/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
42	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2021] 10 S.C.R. 8992021 INSC 758 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,B.V. NAGARATHNA Purchase Agreement; (iv) The Union Government has stated through the Solicitor General that the residual shareholding shall be divested in the open market and shall take place in accordance with the rules A B C D E F G H 909 and regulations of SEBI to ensure that the best price Shareholders’Agreement between the Union Government and SOVL envisaged two call options. SOVL exercised its first call 12 Transfer Petition (C) No 830 of 2003 13 WP (C) Nos. 487, 569, 586 and 587 of 2003 14 “ SEBI ” NATIONAL CONFED. OF OFFICERS ASSOC. OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENT. v. UOI Decision Date : 18-11-2021 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/229/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Direction Issue : Petition partly allowed
43	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED Vs MANOJ GOEL – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 4322021 INSC 637 Judge : B.V. NAGARATHNA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,VIKRAM NATH Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 : [2008] 17 SCR 572; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165 : [2018] 5 SCR 69 – relied on. Prakash Gupta v. SEBI (2021) SCC Online SC 485 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 271 relied on Para 26 (2021) 6 SCC 258 relied on Para Decision Date : 08-10-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1068/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
44	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ANJALI RATHI AND OTHERS Vs TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1522021 INSC 460 Judge : HIMA KOHLI,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,VIKRAM NATH out of any (i) proceedings, inquiries, investigations, orders, show causes, notices, suits, litigation etc. (including those arising out of any orders passed by the NCLT or any other court/ department pursuant to the provisions of the Code or pursuant to any order passed/imposed by the SEBI Decision Date : 08-09-2021 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/12150/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
45	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRAKASH GUPTA Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2021] 4 S.C.R. 8622021 INSC 353 Judge : M.R. SHAH,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD of, by the trial judge upholding the objection of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) that the offence could not be compounded without its consent – Upheld by the High Court holding that the trial has reached the stage of final arguments and the application for compounding concerned courts must seek and consider the view of SEBI on matters related to the compounding of offences – Allegations involved serious acts which impinged upon the protection of investors and the stability of the securities’ market – Thus, SEBI justified in opposing the request for the Decision Date : 23-07-2021 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/569/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
46	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC. – [2021] 5 S.C.R. 5592021 INSC 333 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,SANJIV KHANNA majority of the unitholders as per Regn 18(15)(c) – Case of SEBI , the trustees and the Asset Management Company that prior consent of the unitholders is not envisaged when the trustees, or SEBI directs winding up of a scheme in the interest of the unitholders; and that the decision of the and SEBI to wind up a scheme is final and binding on the unitholders – Appeal before this Court – This Court in its earlier order accepting the poll results, directed winding up of six mutual fund schemes – As regards, interpretation of Regns 39 to 42 and their interrelation with Decision Date : 14-07-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/498/2021 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
47	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) & ORS. – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 1122021 INSC 216 Judge : V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA Qualified Initial Public Offering (‘QIPO’ for short). However, under Regulation 5(2) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements), Regulations 2018 (‘ SEBI Regulations’ for short), a company which has any outstanding convertible securities or any other provided that the OCRPS could be converted into equity shares of the company in the circumstances provided therein, which is also on the occurrence of QIPO or Strategic Sale, provided that the OCRPS shall be converted in the manner indicated. Regulation 5(2) of SEBI – ICDR Regulations Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)…/48/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
48	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED Vs CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. – [2021] 12 S.C.R. 9032021 INSC 217 Judge : S.A. BOBDE,A.S. BOPANNA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN inspector (under applicable law) to investigate into the breach of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 and/or refer the findings of such investigation to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. (K) direct Respondent Decision Date : 26-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/440/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
49	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NEENA ANEJA & ANR. Vs JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. – [2021] 15 S.C.R. 962021 INSC 189 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH judges) C.13. HP State Electricity (2013- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.14. Videocon International (2015- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.15. SEBI v. Classic Credit (2018- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.16. Swapna Mohanty (2018- Supreme Court 2 judges) C.17. Om Prakash Agarwal (2018- Supreme Court Decision Date : 16-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3766/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
50	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR. Vs KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR. – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 6772021 INSC 173 Judge : KRISHNA MURARI,A.M. KHANWILKAR,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI December 2020, in accordance with the applicable SEBI rules and regulations. xvii. Registrar of Companies has only noted and issued a certificate of the change in name of the Corporate Debtor from Ricoh India Limited to Minosha India Limited.” 11. Shri Rohatgi submitted, that NCLAT has grossly Decision Date : 10-03-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2943/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
51	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC – [2021] 14 S.C.R. 5732021 INSC 87 Judge : S. ABDUL NAZEER,SANJIV KHANNA Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 (‘Mutual Fund Regulations/ Regulations’) framed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘ SEBI ’) to hold that clause (c) to sub-regulation (15) of Regulation 181 mandates consent of the unitholders for winding up of mutual fund schemes even unit holders of a scheme pass a resolution that the scheme be wound up; or (f) if the Board so directs in the interest of the unitholders. A B C D E F G H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 14 S.C.R. judgment under challenge substantially agrees with the unitholders, albeit SEBI Decision Date : 12-02-2021 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/498/2021 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Directing winding up and disbursements, the Court
52	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INDIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE LIMITED Vs NEPTUNE OVERSEAS LIMITED & ORS. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1292020 INSC 663 Judge : HRISHIKESH ROY,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL by FMC was set aside and the successor to the FMC, the SEBI was directed to grant adequate time to respondent nos.1 and 2 to file their reply and the application for supply of documents, if any, and the issue of jurisdiction to be decided in accordance with law – Aggrieved, the SEBI and supplied by SEBI ; (iii) Respondents granted opportunity to file their reply to show cause notice; (iv) SEBI would give an opportunity for personal hearing to both the parties and take final view of the matter. Natural Justice – Show cause notice with documents – Held: The show cause Decision Date : 27-11-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9037/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
53	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RUSODAY SECURITIES LTD. Vs NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 2182020 INSC 650 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI by the Circular dated 19.5.1997 as the same was invalid for lack of prior approval of Central Government/ SEBI and 218 [2020] 13 S.C.R. 218 A B C D E F G H 219 the same being in conflict with Byelaws – Held: Subject matter of the Circular falls within ambit of approved by the Central Government/ SEBI , the action taken under the Byelaws/Rules/Regulations, by prescribing such operational parameters in the form of Circular would assume enforceable character – The Circular cannot be said to be ultra vires Clauses 17 and 18 of the Byelaws – The Decision Date : 20-11-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2690/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
54	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF Vs UDAYANT MALHOUTRA – [2020] 14 S.C.R. 3272020 INSC 647 Judge : INDU MALHOTRA,INDIRA BANERJEE,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD r/w. ss.11(1), 11(4)(d), 11(4A), 11(5) and 11B – SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 2015 – regn.10 – It was alleged that respondent-CEO and Managing Director of the company had sold 51,000 shares of the company on 24.10.2016 having inside knowledge of price affirming the power of SEBI to pass an ex parte interim order in appropriate cases, observed that this should be exercised “only in extreme urgent matters” – Thus, there is no reason to take a view at variance with the conclusion of the Tribunal on the facts of the case – However, the Decision Date : 18-11-2020 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/2981/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
55	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUBORNO BOSE Vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 602020 INSC 278 Judge : A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 361 : [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 833; Director of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 471 : [1996] 1 SCR 215; M/s. Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin v. Commissioner of Income Tax, persons in charge of the affairs of the Company. The High Court has adverted to the exposition in Chairman, SEBI Vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr.1. In this decision, while dealing with the question as to whether mens rea is essential for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations, the Decision Date : 05-03-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6267/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
56	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 2972020 INSC 264 Judge : ANIRUDDHA BOSE,R.F. NARIMAN,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN of these currencies, since the presumption would be that it is being done with illegal, fraudulent or tax evading intent. (v) If the Government agrees with the above recommendations, a committee should be constituted with members from DEA, RBI, SEBI , DoR, DoLA, Consumer Affairs, and for purposes other than that of creating or trading in crypto-currencies. 2.15. In August 2017, Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) established a 10-member advisory panel to examine global fintech developments and report on opportunities for the Indian securities market. The Decision Date : 04-03-2020 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/528/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
57	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SURESH CHAND AND ANR. Vs SURESH CHANDER (D) THR LRS. AND ORS. – [2020] 3 S.C.R. 8912020 INSC 212 Judge : AJAY RASTOGI,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD India Act, 1992: ss. 11AA, 12(1B) – SEBI (Collective Investment Scheme) Regulations, 1999 – Regn 3, Regn 2(h) – Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) – Creation of trust fund by the appellant-trustees – Appellants told by SEBI that these Funds being CIS, they should apply for certificates for these Funds, to which the appellants denied since they were not registered in the form of a company – Thereafter, issuance of notice by SEBI – Order by SEBI that the trust funds shall abstain from collecting any money from the investors or carry out any CIS and refund the Decision Date : 19-02-2020 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/482/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
58	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S DALMIA POWER LIMITED & ANR. Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, TRICHY – [2019] 18 S.C.R. 12362019 INSC 1410 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,INDU MALHOTRA Income Tax Department, RBI, SEBI , ROC etc. and such other sectoral regulators or authorities which are likely to be affected by the compromise or arrangement. The statutory authorities could raise objections within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, it would be Decision Date : 18-12-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9496/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
59	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VINAY PRAKASH SINGH Vs SAMEER GEHLAUT & ORS. – [2019] 17 S.C.R. 892019 INSC 1251 Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,SANJIV KHANNA,DEEPAK GUPTA following chart to explain the relation between various entities belonging to the respondents in the SLP as on 31.03.2017 as reflected from order of SEBI dated 14.03.2019: 6% Shivinder Mohan Singh (Alleged Contemnor No.10) Malvinder Mohan Singh (Alleged Contemnor No.9)) 99% Shivi Decision Date : 15-11-2019 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/20417/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
60	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA Vs ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC.ETC. – [2019] 16 S.C.R. 6722019 INSC 1187 Judge : M.R. SHAH,ARUN MISHRA,S. ABDUL NAZEER is recognised to be so by all statutory authorities including the ICAI, SEBI and the Stock Exchanges. Hence, no license fee should be levied on such income, and accordingly, such income should not be included for computing the figure of REVENUE. All such deposits as are credited to the interest, dividend, etc., which are proposed to be included while computing the Revenue are purely non-operational income as it is earned from sources other than the provision of SERVICE and is recognized to be so by all statutory authorities including the ICAI, SEBI and the Decision Date : 24-10-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6328/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
61	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HARI SANKARAN Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [2019] 8 S.C.R. 7612019 INSC 691 Judge : M.R. SHAH,INDU MALHOTRA filed petition under s.130 of the Act – After issuing notice to all concerned including the Central Government, Income Tax Authorities, SEBI , other Statutory Regulatory Body and even to the erstwhile Directors of IL&FS and other two companies, the Tribunal permitted/directed the Central issue notice to the Central Government, Income Tax Authorities, SEBI or any other statutory regulatory body or authorities concerned or any “other person concerned” and is required to take into consideration the representation, if any made – The “other person concerned” is as such not Decision Date : 04-06-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3747/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Appeal dismissed and IAs diposed of
62	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD.) & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2019] 8 S.C.R. 262019 INSC 597 Judge : VINEET SARAN,R.F. NARIMAN particular shareholder of NSEL. On 28.08.2015, the Central Government issued a notification to merge the functions of the FMC with the Securities and Exchange Board of India [“ SEBI ”] w.e.f. 28.09.2015. On the same day, the FCRA was also repealed. Thus, SEBI was now vested with the powers of which is to be governed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [“ SEBI Act”]. 8. FTIL and NSEL were granted a hearing on their objections to the impugned draft amalgamation order by a committee consisting of Shri Pritam Singh, Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4476/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
63	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SNOWTEX INVESTMENT LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA – [2019] 8 S.C.R. 6872019 INSC 593 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA by SEBI both at the legal and technological level for bringing in greater transparency in the market for derivatives. Explaining the reason for the amendment, the Circular states: “3.10 Excluding ‘trading in derivatives’ on recognised stock exchanges from the ambit of proviso to section 43(5) lists out certain transactions which are not deemed to be speculative transactions. 4 (2015) 1 SCC 1 5 (2019) 4 SCC 184 A B C D E F G H 695 Systemic and technological changes introduced by SEBI have resulted in sufficient transparency in the stock markets and Decision Date : 30-04-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4483/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
64	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KHODAY INDIA LIMITED) AND OTHERS Vs SRI MAHADESHWARA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD., KOLLEGAL (UNDER LIQUIDATION) REPRESENTED BY THE LIQUIDATOR – [2019] 3 S.C.R. 4112019 INSC 298 Judge : A.K. SIKRI,S. ABDUL NAZEER,M.R. SHAH confer on aggrieved parties right of appeal to the Supreme Court in contradistinction with the powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, for instance, Section 15-Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) Act, 1992 confers a right of appeal to Decision Date : 01-03-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2432/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
65	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs BHAVESH PABARI – [2019] 18 S.C.R. 8982019 INSC 289 Judge : SANJIV KHANNA,RANJAN GOGOI,DEEPAK GUPTA accordance with the provisions of any of those sections.”– The above apart, the circumstances enumerated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of s.15-J may have no relevance and may never arise in case of contraventions contemplated by certain provisions of the SEBI Act, for instance s.15-A, 15-B or 2014 and Clarificatory Explanation added by Act No.7 of 21017 to s.15J explained – Held: M/s Roofit Industries Ltd. case had erroneously held that s.15-J would not be applicable after s.15-A(a) was amended with effect from 29th October, 2002 till 7th September, 2014 when s.15-A(a) of the SEBI Decision Date : 28-02-2019 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/11311/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
66	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 3 S.C.R. 5352019 INSC 95 Judge : NAVIN SINHA,R.F. NARIMAN – followed. Ritesh Agarwal and Anr. v. SEBI and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 205 : [2008] 8 SCR 553; K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 593 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 405; Darshan Singh v. Ram Pal Singh and Anr. (1992) Supp 1 SCC 191 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 212; Pyare Lal Sharma Decision Date : 25-01-2019 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/99/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Petitions disposed of
67	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ARCELORMITTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. – [2018] 12 S.C.R. 3622018 INSC 935 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,INDU MALHOTRA and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: s.3(37) – By s.3(37) of the Code, words and expressions used but not defined in the Code but defined inter alia by the SEBI Act, 1992, and the Companies Act, 2013, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those Acts – SEBI (Substantial Acquisition important phrase is “in concert”. By Section 3(37) of the Code, words and expressions used but not defined in the Code but defined inter alia by the SEBI Act, 1992, and the Companies Act, 2013, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those Acts. In exercise of Decision Date : 04-10-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9402/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
68	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S EMKAY GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. Vs GIRDHAR SONDHI – [2018] 10 S.C.R. 9372018 INSC 724 Judge : INDU MALHOTRA,R.F. NARIMAN abide by the provisions of the Depositories Act, 1996, SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulation, 1996 Bye-Laws and Operating Instructions issued by CDSL from time to time in the same manner and to the same extent as if the same were set out herein and formed part of this Agreement.” xxx Decision Date : 20-08-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8367/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
69	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ADESH KAUR Vs EICHER MOTORS LIMITED AND ORS. – [2018] 5 S.C.R. 2002018 INSC 571 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,INDU MALHOTRA tribunal holding that since criminal complaint and SEBI investigation was pending, it was not correct for the tribunal to exercise its power to rectify the register u/s. 59, set aside the judgment of NCLT and relegated the appellant to a suit – Correctness of – Held: Not correct – Tribunal was the National Company Law Tribunal. In a significant order that was passed by the NCLT on 09.11.2016, the NCLT recorded that it was acknowledged, both by the Company as well as by the SEBI , that procedural aspects and due care were not adhered to in the process of issuance of duplicate Decision Date : 03-07-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/19426/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
70	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CHINTALAPATI SRINIVASA RAJU Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2018] 5 S.C.R. 7852018 INSC 510 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,NAVIN SINHA CHINTALAPATI SRINIVASA RAJU v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No.16805 of 2017 Etc.) MAY 14, 2018 [R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992: Regn 2(e)(i), 2(c) – Insider and SEBI that financial statement of the company had been grossly overstated – Show cause notice to appellant that being a promoter and director of SCSL, he was liable as an “insider”, having knowledge of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI), as a result of which he stood to gain Decision Date : 14-05-2018 | Case No : WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)…/16805/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
71	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD. & ANR. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 3912018 INSC 352 Judge : ARUN MISHRA,NAVIN SINHA SHRIL, in terms of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (in short, “the SEBI’s Regulations”). 5. In addition to the above, TCISIL acquired 90,26,794 equity shares of SHRIL through purchase on the Bombay Stock Exchange. These purchases (hereinafter referred Decision Date : 17-04-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/13578/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
72	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SCM SOLIFERT LIMITED & ANR. Vs COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA – [2018] 4 S.C.R. 3022018 INSC 354 Judge : ARUN MISHRA,NAVIN SINHA Entry I of Schedule I – SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011. Competition Act, 2002 – s.6(2) – Legislative mandate of – Discussed. Competition Act, 2002 – s.43A – Imposition of penalty under – Discretion for – Held: Imposition of penalty u/s.43A is market for the purchase of up to 20 lacs equity shares representing 1.7 percent shares of the MCFL. Subsequently, an open offer in terms of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (for short, “the Regulations, 2011”) was made for acquiring up to 26 percent Decision Date : 17-04-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10678/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
73	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MACKINTOSH BURN LIMITED Vs SARKAR AND CHOWDHURY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 832018 INSC 269 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR Petitioner Company has been contrary to the SEBI Act as well Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover Regulations. In addition, the Petitioner Company is controlled by M/s MKJ Group which is involved in similar business as the Respondent Company is carrying on and hence, the intention Bengal, Public Enterprises Division as well as the Managing Director of the Respondent Company. In this context, the Petitioner Company Advocate has averred that the question of acquisition being violation of SEBI Act or Takeover Regulation is not applicable in the case of the Respondent Decision Date : 27-03-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3322/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
74	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs RAKHI TRADING PRIVATE LTD. – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 9372018 INSC 119 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,R. BANUMATHI AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v. RAKHI TRADING PRIVATE LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 2011) FEBRUARY 08, 2018 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) further held that since the trades were settled in cash through stock exchange mechanism, they are genuine and did not create a false and misleading appearance of trading in F & O segment – Appeal by SEBI – Held: Trading is always with aim to make profits – But if one party consistently Decision Date : 08-02-2018 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1969/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
75	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING LLC Vs TECH MAHINDRA LTD. & ANOTHER ETC. – [2017] 12 S.C.R. 2592017 INSC 1069 Judge : JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land and face consequences thereof. (B.Ramalinga Raju) Copies marked fo: F I.Chairman SEBI 2. Stock Exchanges” (Emphasis supplied)” I 01. It may here be mentioned that the aforesaid letter,_ its contents G and signature of the Decision Date : 01-11-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/17753/2017 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matters to be placed before Hon’ble CJI
76	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MANOHAR LAL SHARMA Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. – [2017] 10 S.C.R. 5622017 INSC 1022 Judge : ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,UDAY UMESH LALIT accounts/business – Petitioner C sought direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation/inquiry against the Indian offshore bank account holders, revealed in “Panama Papers” and further to register FIR and conduct investigation against Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) Chairman, out any direction which SIT or Supreme Court may give in tlie other pending writpetition being WP(C) No.176 of 2009 – Writ petition disposed of – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002) – G Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA, 1967)-s.51A­ SEBI (Foreign Decision Date : 09-10-2017 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/65/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
77	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DUSHYANT N. DALAL AND ANOTHER Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2017] 11 S.C.R. 4482017 INSC 1004 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,R.F. NARIMAN issued under SEBI Act and/or orders of disgorgement of unlawful gains when the said amounts have remained unpaid – Held: Interest Act enables the Tribunals such as Securities Appellate Tribunal to mvard interest in equity, ji·om the date on which cause of action arose, till the date commencement of proceedings for recovery of such interest – In the present case, interest was payable in equity, because all the penalties collected by SEBI were to be credited to the Consolidatedfimd uls. 15JA ofSEBI Act i.e. public purpose – Such interest would be chargeable uh. 28A of SEBI Act Decision Date : 04-10-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5677/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
78	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs SHRI KANAIYALAL BALDEVBHAI PATEL – [2017] 14 S.C.R. 2682017 INSC 963 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,RANJAN GOGOI Circular CIRIEFD/112012, dated ‘ ·’ ‘ 25.05.2012 of SERI, Consultative Paper issued by ‘ · ‘ -· SEBI , pursuant to a Press release No. 34/95 dated 1; ‘ – March 16, 1995 – referred to. 2. There is no dispute as to the fact that fraud is jurisprudentially very difficult to define or cloth law laid down herein above and SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera can only lead to one conclusion that concerned parties to the transaction were involved in an apparent fraudulent D practice violating market integrity. The parting of information with regard to an imminent bulk purchase and the Decision Date : 20-09-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2595/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
79	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs AVINASH – [2017] 8 S.C.R. 8962017 INSC 871 Judge : N.V. RAMANA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD 506, 120-B ofIPC and E Section 3 of RBI Act and Section 24 ( 1) and 27 of SEBI Act pursuant to the report lodged by the non applicant no. 2 in so far as the applicant is concerned and to; b) quash the action of the non applicant no. I of freezing the bank accounts of the applicant Decision Date : 07-09-2017 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1580/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
80	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs CLASSIC CREDIT LTD. – [2017] 13 S.C.R. 5592017 INSC 778 Judge : ARUN MISHRA,J.S. KHEHAR – Effect B of. on pending proceedings – Complaints filed u/s. 26(2) against C private parties for offences punishable under SEBI Act – Offences allegedly committed before SEBI Amendment Act, 2002 – Trial of accused by Metropolitan Magistrate or, Judicial Magistrate of the first – Amendment to ss. 24 and 26 by the 2002 Amendment Act whereby change in forum of trial – All pending matters D transferred to the concerned court of session – Challenge· to – While matters pending, 2014 Amendment Act’ came in, whereby offences arising under. ‘ SEBI Act’ would be tried by a Decision Date : 21-08-2017 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/67/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
81	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer LAUREL ENERGETICS PVT. LTD. Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2017] 5 S.C.R. 10052017 INSC 616 Judge : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,R.F. NARIMAN 5 S.C.R. 1005 LAUREL ENERGETICS PVT. LTD. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 5675 of 2017) JULY 13, 2017 (R; F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.( SEBI Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover Regulations, 2011: Regn. 10 – Interpretation 10, applicability of – SEBI held that tl2e exemption provisions in Regn. l 0 would not apply to 2014 acquisition, as a result of which the price of Rs.3.20 per share was not accepted and D the higher price of Rs.6.30 would have to be paid to equity shareholders of the Target Company – Decision Date : 13-07-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5675/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
82	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NATIONAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY LTD. Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 9012017 INSC 206 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE 5Z and 30 – Whether an administrative circular issued by SEBI u/s. 11 (l) can be challenged in appeal before C Securities Appellate Tribunal u/s. l 5T – Held: SEBI is an expert body created by the Act which has administrative, legislative and quasi-judicial functions – Under the Act, appeal by SEBI , the Court HELD: 1.1 Under Section 15M of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, a person shall not be qualified for F appointment as the Presiding Officer of the three member Appellate Tribunal unless he is a sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court, or Decision Date : 07-03-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5173/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
83	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Vs M/S STESALIT LIMITED – [2017] 1 S.C.R. 8362017 INSC 136 Judge : ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,JASTI CHELAMESWAR SCC 329; Chairman. SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 361 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2Q07] 7 SCR 499 referred to para 14 c2006J 5 sec 361 referred to para 14 [2Q08] 14 SCR 13 relied on para 15 (118) ELT 650 (Tribunal) referred to para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE (2007) 6 SCC 329 and Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr., (2006) S SCC 361. Their Lordships examined the issue in detail and held that the law laid down in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) is not correct whereas the law laid down in the case ofSEBI (supra) is correct. Decision Date : 15-02-2017 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4507/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
84	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs BURREN ENERGY INDIA LTD. & ORS. – [2016] 8 S.C.R. 1012016 INSC 1089 Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA the aforesaid reversal, Securities & Exchange Board oflndia (hereinafter referred to as ” SEBI “) is in appeal before us. 2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The first respondent herein – Burren Energy India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Burren”) B was incorporated in December, acting in concert with Burren, appointed the same persons on the board of directors of the target company. This, according to SEBI , amounted violation of Regulation 22(7) of the E F G H 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A Regulations inasmuch as the said appointment was Decision Date : 02-12-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/361/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PRAMOD JAIN AND OTHERS Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2016] 9 S.C.R. 1782016 INSC 1003 Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL – s.27 – Hostile takeover of shares – Public Offer – Withdrawal of – On the ground that due to delay on the part of SEBI in taking decision on the draft C letter of offer (DLO), the target company siphoned off its coffers, depleted its valuable fixed assets and eroded its net substantially and thereby the very object of the offer got defeated – SEBI rejected the application for withdrawal – Securities Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of SEBI – On appeal, held: There was D undue delay on the part of SEBI in dealing with DLO – But the delay by itself is not enough to Decision Date : 07-11-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9103/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
86	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CENTRE FOR PUBLIC LITIGATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2016] 9 S.C.R. 6732016 INSC 908 Judge : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,T.S. THAKUR Board of India ( SEBI ). The scrutiny shall be conducted with due observance of norms of procedural fairness that would include an opportunity to IFCI to respond to the allegations. (Para 12)(686-B-E] CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 355 of201 I. Under Article 32 of of the Companies Act, 1956, it is also registered as systemically important NBFC and listed with stock exchanges. As such it comes under the regulatory purview of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, RBI, SEBI , NSE and BSE. 685 A B c D E F G H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] Decision Date : 23-09-2016 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/355/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
87	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs GAURAV VARSHNEY & ANR. – [2016] 7 S.C.R. 12016 INSC 535 Judge : J.S. KHEHAR,C. NAGAPPAN activity, after the insertion of s.12(1 B) into the SEBI Act, till such time as he/it had obtained a certificate of registration from ‘the Board’, in accordance with the Collective Investment Regulations – The said bar would, therefore, undoubtedly extend till the framing of the regulations – The the concerned activities were barred (for the non-proviso category) u/s.12(1 B) co111111enced fro111 the date of insertion of s.12(1 B) into the SEBI Act (25.1.1995), and subsisted upto, the actual date when the new entrepreneur obtained a certificate of registration. s.12(1B) – Mandatory Decision Date : 15-07-2016 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/827/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
88	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs M/S. OPEE STOCK-LINK LTD. & ANR. – [2016] 4 S.C.R. 1712016 INSC 510 Judge : R. BANUMATHI,ANIL R. DAVE for Retail Individual Investors cornered through hundreds of benami/fictitious demat account holders through off market transactions – Violation ofs. 12A(a), (b). (c) of the SEBI Act and Regs 3 and 4(1) of the 2003 Regulations – On appeal, held: It is clear from the transactions that accounts. In fact, the so-called sale of shares was bogus as there was someone who had financed all the demat holders, who had given back the shares to the respondents to whom they had lent their names for getting the shares. The Whole Time Member of the SEBI rightly held that the dealings of Decision Date : 11-07-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2252/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
89	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SIDDHARTH CHATURVEDI Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2016] 2 S.C.R. 4122016 INSC 260 Judge : R.F. NARIMAN,KURIAN JOSEPH circumstances – The questions referred to larger Bench for consideration. D E SEBI Through its Chairman vs. Roofit Industries Limited 2015 (12) SCALE 642; Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (19~0) LR 5 AC 21 (HL) – referred to. Case Law Reference 2015 (12) SCALE 642 (1980) LR 5 AC 21 (HL) referred short ‘the SEBI Act’). 2. The brief facts necessary to understand the present contro~ersy are that the appellants before us made certain purchases of shares of the Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Company between October and December, 2012: On 16m June, 2014, in Civil Appeal No.14730 of2015, Decision Date : 14-03-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/14730/2015 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
90	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs KISHORE R. AJMERA – [2016] 1 S.C.R. 11182016 INSC 201 Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,PRAFULLA C. PANT Brokers and Sub­ Brokers) Regulations, 1992 – Reg 9 – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 – SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations, – Reg 13(4) – Fraudulent/ manipulative practices under the SEBI Regulations and violation D of the Conduct Regulations by the brokers and sub-brokers – Degree of proof required to hold them liable – Power of imposition of penalty – In the first category, sub broker acting through Decision Date : 23-02-2016 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2818/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
91	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer GAUTAM KUNDU Vs MANOJ KUMAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, EASTERN REGION, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT(PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT) GOVT. OF INDIA – [2015] 15 S.C.R. 4992015 INSC 939 Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,R.K. AGRAWAL – Prosecution u/s. 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Proceedings u/s. 24 of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ( SEBI Act) pending – Bail application u/s. 439 Cr.P. C. – Rejected by High Court on the ground that there was no order holding D that no offence was effect on the provisions of s. 439 Cr.P. C.- u/ s. 24 of SEBI Act, unless the contrary is proved the Authority/ Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering – In the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court rightly refused the· bail – Code of Criminal Decision Date : 16-12-2015 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1706/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
92	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY – [2015] 14 S.C.R. 5052015 INSC 942 Judge : C. NAGAPPAN,M.Y. EQBAL any result for the respondent, he made an application under the Act before the CPIO, SEBI , appeal to which went up H . . ·~·~. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY 517 [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] to the CIC, the Division Bench of which disposed of his appeal A upholding the decision the CPIO and the Appellate Authority of SEBI . Thereafter, in August 2009, respondent once again _ made the_ present application underthe Act seeking aforesaid information. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate _ authority, respondent moved second appeal before the CIC, B who by Decision Date : 16-12-2015 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/91/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
93	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PREMIUM GLOBAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. – [2015] 14 S.C.R. 2012015 INSC 904 Judge : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,VIKRAMAJIT SEN Fee Continuity Benefit- Circular dated 27.09.2002 c contemplated that transfer of membership to group company/ 100% subsidiary company would not attract any fresh payment of registration fees – In view of bar under r.8(1 )(f), transfer of membership to appellant company- SEBI refused to the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It is beyond cavil that SEBI , as a trade regulator in the securities market, is entitled to charge registration fees for enabling it to carry out its functions as stipulated in Section 11(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992. G However, it appears at present that SEBI Decision Date : 09-12-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3682/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
94	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer OPG SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. Vs S.E.B.I. & ANR. – [2015] 14 S.C.R. 1712015 INSC 888 Judge : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,VIKRAMAJIT SEN order of the . SAT, SEBI was justified in demanding registration fee from the appellant, a stock-broker, not only on the basis of turnover of the previous year but also for the entire turnover earned after c the turnover of the previous year and till the implementation of D the SEBI is justified by clause 1 (a) & (b) of· Schedule Ill and such demand is saved by CIC\USe 4 of Schedule lllA . G H 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 14 S.C.R. A 4 .. Since the question to be answered is dependent solely upon interpretation of provisions of Securities and Decision Date : 04-12-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3548/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
95	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs MAGNUM EQUITY SERVICES LTD. & ORS. – [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1022015 INSC 871 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH partners who all became the whole-time directors – Membership card of firm transferred to the company – Company registered as stock broker – Three of such directors resigned- It was not the case of SEBI that equity holding of three continuing whole-time directors E had fallen below 40% & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA v. 103 MAGNUM EQUITY SERVICES LTD. and removing ambiguities without altering the effect of the A said provision. Circulars/Government Orders/Notification: Circular dated 12. 09. 2002 issued by SEBI – Held: Is not clarificatory in nature. Dismissing the appeals, Decision Date : 30-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4719/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
96	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SEBI THROUGH ITS CHAIHMAN Vs ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. – [2015] 12 S.C.R. 1902015 INSC 864 Judge : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,VIKRAMAJIT SEN B [2015] 12 S.C.R. 190 SEBI THROUGH ITS CHAIHMAN . v. ROOFITINDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos.1364-1365 of 2005) NOVEMBER 26, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – s. c 15A – Allegations of share-price rigging effect from that date, indicating that H the change would be applicable for failures occurring 190 SEBI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES 191 LTD. after that date. The date on which the failure occurred A was thus relevant for deciding the applicable law, not the date on Decision Date : 26-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1364/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
97	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer A. R. DAHIYA Vs SEBI – [2015] 12 S.C.R. 2022015 INSC 865 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH B [2015] 12 S.C.R. 202 A. R. DAHIYA v. SEBI (Civil Appeal No. 2127 of 2006) NOVEMBER 26, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial c Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 – Regs 3, 10, 11, 12, 16 the Institution had to be disclosed in the public announcement- Post-dated cheques were in consideration of the buy-back of the shares – Said H cheques amounted to a promise to pay and promise to pay 202 A. R. DAHIYA v. SEBI 203 amounted to sale of shares – Subsequent dishonouring of Decision Date : 26-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2727/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
98	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs ICAP INDIA PVT. LTD. – [2015] 11 S.C.R. 652015 INSC 854 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Bhargava, Abhisar Bairagi, F Khaitan & Co. for the Respondent. · 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by · SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This appeal under Section G 15Z of the Securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity, ‘the SEBI Act’) has been preferred by the & Exchange Board of India (for brevity, ‘the SEBI ‘) to challenge the judgment and order dated. 14.08.2006 passed by the H 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 11 S.C.R. A learned Securities Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SAT’) in Appeal No.56 of 2004. 2. The Decision Date : 24-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5275/2006 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
99	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VSE STOCK SERVICES LTD. Vs S.E.B.I. &ANR. – [2015] 12 S.C.R. 9092015 INSC 827 Judge : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,VIKRAMAJIT SEN company-appellant D company, (company limited by stocks) – Said company obtained membership of NSE but SEBI refused to grant recognition since only one subsidiary could claim registration as a broker – Subsequently, to operate on NSE, earlier subsidiary company amalgamated with the appellant company – Payment of provisional fee liability by appellant. – However, demand of final fee by SEBI – Challenge to, on the ground that appellant entitled to fee continuity benefit in t0rms of circular of SEBI – Rejection of claim by tribunal – F On appeal, held: Compulsion of the appellant was Decision Date : 04-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4664/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
100	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer S.E.B.I. Vs ALLIANCE FINSTOCK LTD. & ORS. ETC. ETC. – [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1452015 INSC 823 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH preferred under Section 15Z of the securities & Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for brevity ‘the SEBI Act’) against a common judgment and order dated 091h May 2006 s rendered Qy the learned Securities Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ‘the SAT’) in Appeal No.123 of 2004 and other analogous filed by the stock brokers (respondents herein) to challenge the action of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (for short, ‘the SEBI ‘) denying them the benefit C of fee continuity in terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule Ill to the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub- B Decision Date : 03-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4493/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
101	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs M/S. PREBON YAMANE (I) LTD. – [2015] 10 S.C.R. 2502015 INSC 822 Judge : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,VIKRAMAJIT SEN Regulation 1 O; Schedule Ill clause 4- Fee Continuity benefit- SEBI issue · a provisional fee liability statement – Payment under protest by respondent- SAT directed SEBI to refund the amounts­ Held: Respondent was not an entity as envisaged in clause D 4 of Schedule Ill – Hence not entitled to would not be entitled to claim the advantage of Clause (c). In fact, this is the very understanding of the Respondent since fees were deposited by them under Clause (a) in sharp C contradistinction of Clause (c). [Para 13] [264-C-H] B.S.E. Brokers Forum vs. SEBI (2001) 3 SCC 482; Sethi Decision Date : 03-11-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7607/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
102	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUBRATA CHATIORAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2015] 10 S.C.R. 6602015 INSC 1034 Judge : T.S. THAKUR,C. NAGAPPAN ramifications apart from international money SUBRATACHATTORAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 663 [T.S. THAKUR, J.] laundering dimensions involving several persons in public life. A It put a question mark on the role of regulators like the SEBI . and the Reserve Bank of India. Investigation by CBI was in Decision Date : 16-10-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/401/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
103	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. – [2015] 10 S.C.R. 6972015 INSC 745 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,PRAFULLA C. PANT 335; State of Gujarat v.M.P Shah Charitable Trust (1994) 3 SCC 552; State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhiroj Kumar Sengar 2009 (7) SCR 1016: · (2009) 13 SCC 600; Nirma Industries v. SEBI 2013 (3) SCR 662: (2013) 8 SCC 20; Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee well as his real father. This Court noted that the appointment had been obtained by F suppression of the facts· including the rejection of the first application and therefore, principles of natural justice were not required mandatorily to be complied with. 17. Nirma Industries v. SEBI Decision Date : 07-10-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8378/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
104	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KOSHA INVESTMENTS LTD. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. – [2015] 9 S.C.R. 4122015 INSC 675 Judge : VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH notice to appellant- SEBI held that the appellant was already holding between 15% to 75% shares of SIL and it could acquire additional shares of this company without public announcement only upto 5% of its paid up capital during the E relevant period – However, it acquired shares more than 5% of the paid up capital of SIL without public announcement as required by Reg 11(1) – SEBI issuing directions to appellant to make public announcement in terms of Reg 11 ( 1) and imposed penalty for the non-compliance – F Said orders upheld by tribunal – Held: Order passed by Decision Date : 18-09-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3219/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
105	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE OF TAMIL NADU &ANR. Vs TVL. SOUTH INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSN. & ORS. – [2015] 9 S.C.R. 1482015 INSC 567 Judge : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,VIKRAMAJIT SEN SEBI Act: “An Act to provide for the establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market. …… ” This Court had held that the SEBI Act postulated H and permitted the charging of two types fees – (i) under STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. TVL. SOUTH INDIAN SUGAR 161 MILLS ASSN. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.) Section 11 (2)(k) of the SEBI Act for carrying out the several A and sundry purposes contained in Section 11, and (ii) for the registration of applicants under Section 12(2). It was Decision Date : 12-08-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1028/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
106	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs PANASIA ADVISORS LTD. & ANR. – [2015] 11 S.C.R. 902015 INSC 483 Judge : F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH level by respondent to give false. appearance to the financial statement of the companies in order to mislead Indian E investors – SEBI debarring the respondents for a period of 10 years prohibiting respondents from accessing the capital market- Challenge against- Held: In the case on hand, would certainly call for a probe at the hands of SEBI on whom a duty is cast u/s. 11 (1) to protect the interest of investors in H securities and the security market – Therefore, exercise of 90 SEBI v. PANASIAADVISORS LTD. 91 jurisdiction by SEBI against the respondents was well founded Decision Date : 06-07-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10560/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
107	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &ANR. – [2015] 9 S.C.R. 9922015 INSC 446 Judge : RANJAN GOGOI,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule. (Swedish Match AB v. SEBI and CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.) 30. In B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal this Court has observed as follows: (SCC p. 273, para 24) “24. The literal rule Decision Date : 01-07-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/730/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
108	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA(SEBI) & ANR. Vs SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPN. LTD. & ORS. – [2015] 7 S.C.R. 10252015 INSC 1001 Judge : T.S. THAKUR,ANIL R. DAVE,A.K. SIKRI 7 S.C.R. 1025 SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA( SEBI ) A &ANR. v. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPN. LTD. & ORS. I.A. NOS. 59-61/2015 & I.A. NOS. 62-64/2015 INC P (C) Nos.412-413/2012 and CP (C) No.260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.8643 of 2012 JUNE 19, 2015 [T.5. period- Contempt Petition by SEBI – Various opportunities given to contemnors to purge the contempt by depositing the amount, as directed – However, E non-compliance of the directions – Three out of four contemnors taken to judicial custody and direction issued to deposit sum of Rs. 33, Decision Date : 19-06-2015 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/260/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
109	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DEVI DAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS. – [2015] 7 S.C.R. 8532015 INSC 414 Judge : DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT 7 S.C.R. A Gajanan Visheshwar(1994) 5 SCC 550; Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603, State of Kamataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools (2014) 9 SCC 485 – relied on. B c Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 2015 (4) SCALE Decision Date : 14-05-2015 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1179/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
110	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Vs RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION – [2015] 7 S.C.R. 11042015 INSC 996 Judge : R. BANUMATHI,V. GOPALA GOWDA & Ors. v. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Co (P) Ltd. (2014} 4 SCC 538; Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram G Mutual Funds & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 361: 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 833 – referred to. CASE LAW REFERENCE 2012 (2) SCR 715 relied on. Para 16 H 1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A 2009 Decision Date : 13-05-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4417/2015 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Appeals dismissed. & I.As dispossed of
111	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2015] 3 S.C.R. 12015 INSC 27 Judge : M.Y. EQBAL,J.S. KHEHAR the impugned order. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A right of appeal can be availed of only when it is expressly conferred. When such a right is conferred, its parameters are also laid down. A right of VIDEOCON INTERNATIO~AL LTD. v. SEBI 3 f appeal may be absolute, or the amendment, the earlier appellate package H 4 SUPREME COURTREPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A stands reduced, because under the amended Section 15Z, it is not open to an appellant, to agitate an appeal on facts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment to Section 15Z of the SEBI Decision Date : 13-01-2015 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/117/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
112	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. DISCOVERY WEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs MIS. PADMINI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. & ORS. – [2014] 14 S.C.R. 2652014 INSC 1039 Judge : UDAY UMESH LALIT,DIPAK MISRA in the agreement is accepted, delisting could not have been allowed, regard being had to the Circular dated 02.05.2001 issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of F India (for short ” SEBI “), because the respondent No. 4 was required to maintain benchmark of 10 per cent and not 20 the public shareholding in the manner provided in the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn D our attention to Rule 19(2)(b) of the Rules, which has been brought in by way of amendment. The said Decision Date : 10-12-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5027/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
113	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer P.S. MEHERHOMJI Vs K.T. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. – [2014] 11 S.C.R. 512014 INSC 710 Judge : M.Y. EQBAL,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE Credit Information Bureau, Mumbai; Chairman, SEBI , Mumbai; Finance Minister, Government of India, New Delhi; D State Minister of Finance (Banking), New Delhi; Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi; Secretary(Banking) Government of India, New Delhi, Joint Secretary(Banking), Govt. of India, Complainant Company’s credentials so as to go ahead with the publication of the prospectus, as the 1st accused F earlier made a representation against the Complainants to SEBI . That the 2 nd accused representing the 1st Accused Company through a letter dated 14.12.2006 addressed to Mr. Decision Date : 14-10-2014 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/2211/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
114	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer 1.P. HOLDING ASIA SINGAPORE P. LTD. & ANR. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2014] 8 S.C.R. 3992014 INSC 993 Judge : KURIAN JOSEPH,MADAN B. LOKUR 8 S.C.R. 399 1.P. HOLDING ASIA SINGAPORE P. LTD. & ANR. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 7390 of 2012) AUGUST 20, 2014 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 – Regulations 10, company which is being taken over by the acquirers – Ordinarily when there is a gap D of 25% between the consideration paid to the outgoing promoters and the non-compete fee, SEBI ought not to conduct any inquiry – However, if it appears to SEBI that the difference between the offer price Decision Date : 20-08-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7390/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
115	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer S.E.B.I. Vs SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD. – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 10362014 INSC 501 Judge : A.K. SIKRI,ANIL R. DAVE,T.S. THAKUR were granted interim bail, partially modified order dated 21st November, 2013 passed by this E Court and that passed by SEBI on 131h February, 2013 so as to enable Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) referred to as ‘Saharas’ for short) to deposit with SEBI the maturity value/sale consideration of FDs, F bonds and securities held by the Saharas. We had also, by the same order, permitted Saharas to sell nine different properties situate in nine different cities in the country and to deposit Decision Date : 22-07-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9813/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
116	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer S.E.B.I. Vs SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 10112014 INSC 418 Judge : T.S. THAKUR,A.K. SIKRI [T. S. THAKUR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] Scams – Investor-fraud case – Invitation/collection of deposits from general public in the form of ‘Optional Fully Convertible Debentures’-OFCD by a Company- Complaint by investors’ group – Direction by SEBI to the Company not A B c D to by SEBI , tribunal and this Court as regards refund of amount as also extension of time period for making refund – F However, non compliance with the directions – Contempt petitions against the contemnors – Various orders passed – Interim applications by contemnors praying that restraint on Decision Date : 04-06-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/8643/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
117	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUBRATA CHATTORAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2014] 6 S.C.R. 7832014 INSC 392 Judge : T.S. THAKUR,C. NAGAPPAN several political and other influential o oersonalities wielding considerable clout and influence – Role of regulators like SEBI , authorities.under the Companies Act and RBI also under investigation by State Police Agency “””‘.” Writ Petition praying for transfer of investigation from several political and other influential personalities G wielding considerable clout and influence. The role of regulators like SEBI , authorities under the Companies Act and the Reserve Bank of India is also under investigation by the State Police Agency which may have to be taken to its Decision Date : 09-05-2014 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/401/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
118	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUBRATA ROY SAHARA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2014] 12 S.C.R. 5732014 INSC 367 Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.S. KHEHAR contempt jurisdiction – Courts have the power to enforce compliance of judicial orders, and also, the power fo·punish for contempt – On facts, the two companies in question of which the petitioner is a promoter, flouted orders passed by the· SEBI ‘(FTM), SAT, the High Court and of Supreme them from investors, who had subscribed to their OFCDs, by the SEBI (FTM) and by the SAT) would require prolonged hearing of the matter. Months of time, just in the same manner as this Bench D had taken while passing the order dated 31.8.2012, would have to be spent again. It was also for Decision Date : 06-05-2014 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/57/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
119	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs M/S. AKSHYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 4022014 INSC 340 Judge : S.S. NIJJAR,A.K. SIKRI 13 S.C.R. 402 A SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. M/S. AKSHYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. B (Civil Appeal No. 6041of2013) APRIL 25, 2014 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A. K. SIKRI, JJ.] c SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997-Regn. 27 and out when the prices of the shares have been inflated, due to the public offer – Such speculative H 402 · SEBI v. MIS. AKSHYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. 403 practices are sought to be prevented by Regn. 27(1)(b)(c) A and (d), that is precisely the reason why Regn. 27(1 )(a) was Decision Date : 25-04-2014 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6041/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
120	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer LALITA KUMARI Vs GOVT. OF U.P. AND ORS. – [2013] 14 S.C.R. 7132013 INSC 748 Judge : P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN,S.A. BOBDE,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,RANJAN GOGOI v. SEBI (2004) 11 sec 641. E The language of Section 154(1), therefore, admits of no other construction but the literal construction. 38. The legislative intent of Section 154 is vividly elaborated in Bhajan Lal (supra) which is as under:- F “30. The legal mandate enshrined in Section Decision Date : 12-11-2013 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/68/2008 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
121	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2014] 3 S.C.R. 8612013 INSC 744 Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,S.S. NIJJAR 3 S.C.R. 861 ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012) NOVEMBER 01, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Art.32 – Writ petition challenging appointment of Chairman, SEBI – Section 4(5) of SEBI Act inter alia stipulates that Chairman and other Members of SEBI shall A B c be persons of “ability, integrity and standing who have shown capacity in dealing with problems relating to securities market” 0 – Thus, statutorily, a person cannot be appointed as Decision Date : 01-11-2013 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/374/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
122	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. INTEGRATED FINANCE CO. LTD. Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ETC. ETC. – [2013] 13 S.C.R. 9382013 INSC 472 Judge : PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,S.S. NIJJAR conversion. The conversion price will be • F determined taking .into account the valuation laid down by SEBI guidelines. (b) The debentures will be issued with -……; periodical interest payment option to the G deposit/ bond holders who are holding regular interest payment Decision Date : 16-07-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5500/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
123	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 5082013 INSC 330 Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA (PKMG-1) and CB-OS/2 blocks) for the proposed transaction under the respective PSCs. B (e) Necessary approval from other regulatory bodies such as SEBI , on the proposed transaction to be obtained and submitted by Vedanta Resources Pie. (f) Necessary Security Clearance from Ministry of Decision Date : 09-05-2013 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/69/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
124	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 6622013 INSC 332 Judge : ANIL R. DAVE,S.S. NIJJAR 8 c [20·t3] 3 S.C.R. 662 NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. v. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 6082 of 2008) MAY 9, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997: Regulation read with Regulation 10 – Order of SEBI rejecting request of appellant for withdrawal of offer to acquire equity shares – Challenged for denial of oral hearing – Held: Not being given an opportunity of oral hearing cannot always D be equated to a situation, where no opportunity is given to Decision Date : 09-05-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6082/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
125	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer N. NARAYANAN Vs ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SEBI – [2013] 6 S.C.R. 3912013 INSC 287 Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA 6 S.C.R. 391 N. NARAYANAN v. ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SEBI (Civil Appeal Nos. 4112-4113 of 2013) APRIL 26, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – s.12A A B & s. 15HA rlw s. 15J – Securities and Exchange Board of violation of s. 12A of the SEBI Act rlw Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 Regulations which essentially intends to preserve G ‘market integrity’ and to prevent ‘market abuse’ – Conduct of appellant-Director and other Directors was fraudulent and the practices they adopted, relating to securities, Decision Date : 26-04-2013 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/4112/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
126	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer JATYA PAL SINGH & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2013] 2 S.C.R. 9702013 INSC 264 Judge : S.S. NIJJAR,ANIL R. DAVE of the Government of India to 26.12 %. Tata Group also made a. public offer for acquiring a further 20% of the share capital of the VSNL, from the public in terms of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Share and Takeover) Regulations G 1997. Consequently, the total holding of the Tata Group in Decision Date : 17-04-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2147/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
127	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. P.G.F. LIMITED & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER – [2013] 6 S.C.R. 322013 INSC 155 Judge : F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,B.S. CHAUHAN companies approved by the second respondent. Thereafter the second respondent passed an order dated 20.2.2002 in exercise of its powers u/s. 11 B of SEBI Act, issuing stringent directions against E F the appellant-company. The order was challenged. The High Court directed the Company agricultural land and its joint venture G schemes were Collective Investment Schemes and directed the Company neither to collect money from investors nor to launch any new Scheme as it had failed to comply with the statutory requirement as provided under SEBI (Collective Investment Decision Date : 12-03-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6572/2004 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
128	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs M/S. INFORMETICS VALUATION AND RATING PVT. LTD. – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 4262013 INSC 111 Judge : S.S. NIJJAR,M.Y. EQBAL Regulations, 1999 – Regulations 3, 4(e), 6, 7 and C First Schedule Form A – Application under Regulation 3 by company, to Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) seeking registration as a Credit Rating Agency (CRA) – SEBI required the company to furnish complete details of its promoters, promoter’s net worth certificate etc – The company E submitted the net worth certificate of its promoter which was issued on the basis of the certificate provided by their Bankers – SEBI further directed the company to produce accounts of its promoter for another two years after the date Decision Date : 19-02-2013 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/291/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
129	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORP. LTD. & ORS. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. – [2012] 12 S.C.R. 2562012 INSC 388 Judge : RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI,J.S. KHEHAR,S.S. NIJJAR,S.H. KAPADIA,D.K. JAIN cause notice to the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ), respondent No. 1 herein, directing Sahara to put on affidavit as to how they intend to secure the liabilities incurred c by them to the OFCD holders during the pendency of the Civil o Appeals. 4. Pursuant to the relief filed by Sahara was kept for hearing on 20.01.2012. 6. On 20.01.2012, it was submitted by the learned counsel for SEBI that what was stated in the affidavit of 4.01.2012 filed F by Sahara inter alia setting out as to how the liabilities of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. Decision Date : 11-09-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9813/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
130	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ANR. – [2012] 12 S.C.R. 12012 INSC 367 Judge : J.S. KHEHAR,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN planned attempt to bypass the regulatory (and administrative) authority of SEBI – Invitation to subscribe to Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) – Inquiries made by the Investigating Authority – Powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘ SEBI ? u/s.55A(b) of the Companies whether Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R. A issued are securities under the SCR Act – Discussed. In the instant appeals, questions concerning the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘ SEBI ‘) under Section 55A(b) of Decision Date : 31-08-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9813/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
131	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RAHEJA UNVIERSAL LIMITED Vs NRC LIMITED & ORS. – [2012] 3 S.C.R. 3882012 INSC 77 Judge : SWATANTER KUMAR,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,S.H. KAPADIA 3 S.C.R. There is no evidence to show whether various provisions of SEBI Take Over Code have been complied with; The company has violated the amended terms and conditions of STL dated 29.6.2009 by not paying to PNB one instalment of Rs.2.78 crores before 30.6.2009; Consequently, PNB Decision Date : 07-02-2012 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1920/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
132	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer KETAN V. PAREKH Vs SPECIAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER. – [2011] 14 S.C.R. 12042011 INSC 825 Judge : G.S. SINGHVI,S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA attached under Section 281 B of the Income Tax Act by order dated 7th April, 2003 passed by Dy. CIT, Central Cir. 40, Mumbai ( a copy of the order dated 7th April, 2003 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 8-1). 7. That by order dated 12th December, 2003 passed by SEBI , the from associating with the Securities market for the period of fourteen years. (A copy of the SEBI order dated 12th December, 2003 is annexed herewith and marked as B An nexu re-82. 8. In view of the submissions made above it is respectfully submitted that the applicant/appellant is not in Decision Date : 29-11-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10301/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
133	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ASHIWIN S. MEHTA & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 14 S.C.R. 10002011 INSC 786 Judge : D.K. JAIN,A.K. GANGULY Over Regulations of SEBI . In cases where the Custodian finds that as on the relevant date, he does not possess shares of a company to the extent of 5% or ASHIWIN S. MEHTA & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & 1013 ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.] above, but he anticipates that in near future, the limit is likely its management and not to both as was done in the present c case and (iii) the buy back effected by Apollo was in complete violation of Section 77 A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short “the Companies Act”) as well as SEBI (Buy back of Securities) Regulations, 1998. It was also urged that Decision Date : 08-11-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4263/2003 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
134	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CHATTERJEE PETROCHEM (I) PVT. LTD. Vs HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. & ORS. – [2011] 15 S.C.R. 1352011 INSC 729 Judge : ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH Although, Mr. Nariman had made certain submissions E with regard to the Agreement of 8th March, 2002, read with the requirements of the Depositories Act, 1996, SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996 and the bye­ laws and business rules/operating instructions issued by Decision Date : 30-09-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5416/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
135	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RAM JETHMALANI AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDlA AND ORS. – [2011] 8 S.C.R. 7252011 INSC 434 Judge : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,S.S. NIJJAR bank from extending its business in India by refusing to approve its takeover of Standard Chartered Mutual Funds business in India. It was also claimed by the Petitioners that the SEBI had alleged that UBS played a role in the stock market crash of 2004. The H RAM JETHMALANI AND ORS. Decision Date : 04-07-2011 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/176/2009 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned
136	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BINOD KUMAR Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. – [2011] 4 S.C.R. 6462011 INSC 234 Judge : DEEPAK VERMA,DALVEER BHANDARI call on assistance of officials from: (a) Customs and Excise Department; B (b) Under the NDPS Act; (c) Income Tax’ (d) Stock Exchange; c (e) RBI; (f) Police; (g) Under FEMA; D (h) SEBI ; or (i) Any Body Corporate established under an Act or by the Central Government E Decision Date : 29-03-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2689/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
137	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 9712011 INSC 129 Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,S.H. KAPADIA,SWATANTER KUMAR,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE SEBI and F insurance regulators. Civil appeals lie to this Court. Stakes in such cases are huge. One cannot possibly expect timely clearance by CoD. In such cases, grant of clearance to one and not to the other may result in generation of more and more litigation. The mechanism has outlived Decision Date : 17-02-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1883/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
138	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SESA INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs KRISHNA H. BAJAJ AND ORS. – [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3172011 INSC 103 Judge : H.L. DATTU,D.K. JAIN It has also been suggested Part “D” of the Inspection Report for references to be made to the Ministry of Finance and SEBI . Accordingly, the Central Government has requested the c addressees to examine the report and take appropriate action.” 7. Thereafter, on 8th May, 2006, the Decision Date : 07-02-2011 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1430/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
139	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING Vs SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. AND ANOTHER. – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 8582010 INSC 501 Judge : A.K. GANGULY,P. SATHASIVAM accounts of respondent no. 1 were exaggerated and c overstated. Along with the application for additional pleading, relevant paragraphs of Raju’s statements have been enclosed. (b) On 7.1.2009, it was reported that the Securities and Exchange Board of India D ( SEBI ) directed an investigation the entire matter. Along with the additional pleadings were annexed extracts from press clippings about the said investigation by SEBI . (c) On 8.1.2009, Government of India directed E an inspection of the financial statements and books of 8 su~.;idiaries of first respondent. Such Decision Date : 11-08-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6519/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
140	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LTD. Vs JAYARAM CHIGURUPATI & ORS. – [2010] 8 S.C.R. 2512010 INSC 374 Judge : SWATANTER KUMAR,AFTAB ALAM,S.H. KAPADIA share of Zenotech. The offer price was E F H 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 8 S.C.R A based on the price of Zenotech shares quoted on the stock exchange. Complaints were filed to SEBI by one of the promoters of Zenotech and another shareholder of 8 Zenotech claiming that the price for Zenotech shares could not be less than Rs.160 per share and requested the SEBI to direct Daiichi to revise the offer price. The claim was rejected. Security Appellate Tribunal (SAT) allowed the appeals and directed Daiichi to offer Rs.160 per share to the shareholders of Zenotech. Decision Date : 08-07-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/7148/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
141	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer C.I.T., MUMBAI Vs M/S. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. – [2010] 7 S.C.R. 7482010 INSC 360 Judge : S.H. KAPADIA,SWATANTER KUMAR transactions so also declaration of dividends by mutual fund are being vetted and regulated by SEBI for last couple of years. If section 94(7) would have been brought into effect from 1.4.19&2, as in the case of section 14A, it G would have resulted in reversal of large number of dividends by mutual fund are being vetted and C.l.T., MUMBAI v. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK 775 BROKERS P. LTD. [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.] regulated by SEBI for last couple of years. If Section 94(7) A would have been brought into effect from 1.4.1962, as in the case of Section 14A, it would have Decision Date : 06-07-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4927/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
142	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs AJAY AGARWAL – [2010] 3 S.C.R. 702010 INSC 123 Judge : A.K. GANGULY,G.S. SINGHVI statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act of 2002, it appears that the Parliament thought that in view of growing importance of stock market in national economy, SEBI will have to deal with new demands in terms of improving organisational structure and strengthening capacity. Therefore, certain shortcomings which were in the existing struc.ture of law were sought to be amended by G strengthening the mechanisms available to SEBI for investigation and enforcement, so that it is better equipped to investigate and enforce against market malpractices. [Paras Decision Date : 25-02-2010 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1697/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
143	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MAHESH RATILAL SHAH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2010] 1 S.C.R. 7842010 INSC 49 Judge : ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH He filed a writ petition before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction upon the Union of India and SEBI to withdraw the recognition granted to BSE for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Sections B 7 and 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. further direction was also sought for cancellation of SEBI registration of all relevant 90 members of BSE for fraudulently inducing investors to trade in forged scrips of Mis Presto Finance Ltd. and to declare the Rules, Bye- c laws and Regulations of the BSE as illegal, void and ultra Decision Date : 19-01-2010 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/21686/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
144	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer C. I. T. Vs ATUL MOHAN BINDAL – [2009] 13 S.C.R. 4642009 INSC 1066 Judge : RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,TARUN CHATTERJEE 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the ‘Rules’) and a decision of this court in Chairman, SEBI vs. c Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. {2006 (5) SCC 361) and was of the view that the basic scheme for imposition of penalty under section 271 ( 1 )( c) of IT Act, Section 11 AC of the Decision Date : 24-08-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5769/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
145	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA Vs M/S. RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS – [2009] 9 S.C.R. 582009 INSC 794 Judge : S.H. KAPADIA,AFTAB ALAM the Act is identically worded and in a given case it was open to the assessing officer not to impose any penalty. The Division Bench made reference to Rule 96ZQ and Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the ‘Rules’) and a decision of this Court in Chairman, SEBI F vs. Decision Date : 12-05-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3527/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
146	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer S.E.B.I Vs SAIKALA ASSOCIATES LTD. – [2009] 6 S.C.R. 7982009 INSC 576 Judge : LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,ARIJIT PASAYAT modify penalty imposed by SEBI – Penalty of suspension of cerlificate of registration by SEBI for violation of s. 12(1) rl w r.3of1992 Rules – Modification of, to monetary penalty by the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal was not right in modifying the D penalty · – The statute provides penalty only without registration in breach of s. 12 of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, rlw r. 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Rules, 1992, and Securities G and Exchange Board of India Regulations and Circulars ~ 4 of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Decision Date : 21-04-2009 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3696/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
147	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer PARVINDERJIT SINGH AND ANR. Vs STATE (U.T. CHANDIGARH) AND ANR. – [2008] 15 S.C.R. 1552008 INSC 1232 Judge : ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER Bank of India; whereas CWA is a wealth advisory body incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is regulated by the directions and guidelines as set out by SEBI and the Stock Exchanges. G H Appellants’ (who are employees of Citi Bank) prayer for anticipatory bail are based on Decision Date : 03-11-2008 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1716/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
148	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs M/S DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND ORS. – [2008] 14 S.C.R. 132008 INSC 1098 Judge : AFTAB ALAM,ARIJIT PASAYAT,P. SATHASIVAM as the case may c be, are quashed and the matter remitted to it for disposal in the light of the judgment. [para 27] [49-G, 50-A] Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 833 =(2006 (5) sec 361 – upheld. Dilip N. Shroff v. Jo{nt Commissioner of Income Tax, D Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. 2006 Suppl. (2 ) scR 833 = 2006 (5) sec 361 2 Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr. 2007(7) SCR 499=2007 (8) SCALE 304 CIViL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal NOs. 10289-10303 of 2003 From the final Judgment Decision Date : 29-09-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/10289/2003 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
149	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – [2008] 8 S.C.R. 9462008 INSC 684 Judge : DALVEER BHANDARI,TARUN CHATTERJEE 8 S.C.R. 946 A NIKHIL KANCHANALA LVAKHARIA -1 – v.. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 4210 Of 2006) B MAY 15, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARl,JJ] ~ SEBI (STOCK BROKERS AND .SUB-BROKERS) c REGULATIONS, 1992: Regulation member of the stock exchange and, as such, the claimant would not be entitled to the benefit – SEBI (Stock- Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 – rr. 4 and 10 – Secu- rities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – s. 15Z. E The appellant claimed that his father was a member of the Bombay Decision Date : 15-05-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4210/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
150	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RITESH AGARWAL AND ANR. Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT AND ORS. – [2008] 8 S.C.R. 5532008 INSC 657 Judge : S.B. SINHA,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA – Irregularities committed by ‘promoters’ of target company in its public issue and allotment of shares – SEBI holding the public issue by the promoters to be a hoax with an intention to perpetrate fraud on investors – Board directing all promoters to disassociate themselves in every D respect · mission of act of fraud on their own behalf but also on behalf of the minors – Minors being not party to the fraud, could not have been subjected to penalty under the Act – Contract Act, 1872 . SEBI (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR F TRADE PRACTICES RELATING TO SECURITIES Decision Date : 13-05-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4681/2006 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
151	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/S. BHARJATIYA STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, U.P. – [2008] 3 S.C.R. 11652008 INSC 313 Judge : V.S. SIRPURKAR,S.B. SINHA SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund [(2006) 5 \.)\’ SCC 361), this Court held: D • “35. In our considered opinion, penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is established and hence the intention of the parties Decision Date : 05-03-2008 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1768/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
152	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VENEET AGRAWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 7402007 INSC 1112 Judge : ASHOK BHAN,V.S. SIRPURKAR completion of 30 days-Requirement of s. 31 has been thus met-Rules/ ~t’ regulations cannot be declared ultra vires on this ground-Even otherwise, provisions of s. 31 not being mandatory and merely directory, rules/regulations made thereunder cannot be held to be ultra vires- E SEBI (Stock Rajya Sabha after the calling of the new session, G the procedure mandated under s.31 of the SEBI Act was not complied with. ~ Before different High Courts, various writ petitions were filed challenging the levy of turnover fee as well as thevires of Regulation H 740 I ., I I Decision Date : 31-10-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2565/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
153	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RATNABALI CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. Vs SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 6292007 INSC 1098 Judge : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,S.H. KAPADIA had not taken place due to D compulsion of law-Object of the Act-Discussed-Companies Act, y 1956-ss.391 to 394- SEBI (Stock-brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992-Schedule Ill-Circular dated 30. 9. 2002-Para 7. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Stock Exchange- Functions Companies Act, 1956. In 1995, RSL was registered as a broker with NSE. It had paid G ~, initial registration fees for the first year and thereafter paid fees on turnover basis for subsequent four years. SEBI had adopted recommendations of Gupta Committee which stated that the 629 H ~ \ Decision Date : 23-10-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4945/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
154	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MAKSUD SAIYED Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 11132007 INSC 940 Judge : S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI filed by the Bank with SEBI on 3.12.2004 and was kept on the Website of the bank, SEBI and Lead B Manager M/s. SBI Caps and a press note was released. Final prospectus of the issue was filed with SEBI on 10.1.2005 and was kept on Website of the Bank, SEBI and lead Manager M/s. SBI Caps, and Decision Date : 18-09-2007 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1248/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
155	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer DINESH DALMIA Vs C.B.I – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 11242007 INSC 941 Judge : S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI Board of India ( SEBI ). As the appellant was r evading arrest, non-bailable warrant was issued. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in terms of s. 173(2) Cr.P.C., wherein name of the appellant alongwith the Companies, was mentioned. Although statements u/s 161 Decision Date : 18-09-2007 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1249/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
156	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer M/.S. GULJAG INDUSTRIES Vs COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER – [2007] 8 S.C.R. 7932007 INSC 810 Judge : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,S.H. KAPADIA blank in all material respects then it is impossible for the A.O. to arrive at the taxable turnover of the assessee. (Paras 21 and 25) (829-F~G; 832-C-D) Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 361, D referred to. ~ 3.5. The-Court has to go by the words used in the 22. In the case of Chairman, SERI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr., [2006] 5 SCC 361, this Court found on facts th.at a mutual fund had violated C SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. Under the said Regulations there was a restriction placed on the mutual fund on purchasing or selling Decision Date : 03-08-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/5197/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
157	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYSTS OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND ORS – [2007] 6 S.C.R. 11272007 INSC 606 Judge : MARKANDEY KATJU,S.B. SINHA authority ‘ SEBI ‘ G to oversee the functioning of the capital market. H 3. In recent decades the financial services industry has matured in our country. A large number of mutual funds have been set up by the banks, insurance companies and the corporate sectors, leasing and hire Decision Date : 16-05-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/6835/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
158	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer G.L. SULTANIA AND ANR. Vs THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 6 S.C.R. 11522007 INSC 607 Judge : B.P. SINGH,ALTAMAS KABIR 1956 D and the SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection Guidelines), 1999. It also rejected the contention that the earning per share had not been worked out by the valuer and in this connection reference was made to paragraph 3.3.2 wherein the earning per share had been calculated. adopting 15 % as the capitalization ratio the appellate Tribunal held that the CCI Guidelines which were adopted by the Government of India and the Controlle; E of Capital Issues had been taken into account and even though the SEBI had abolished the CCI guidelines, the principles and the Decision Date : 16-05-2007 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1672/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
159	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CHAIRMAN S.E.B.I. Vs SHRIRAM MUTUAL FUND AND ANR. – [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 8332006 INSC 353 Judge : AR. LAKSHMANAN,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA S.E.B.I. v. SHRJRAM MUTUAL FUND AND ANR. MAY 23, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996-Regulation 25(7)(9)­ Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992~ection 15(D)(b)­ Violation of terms of Certificate of the permissible limits prescribed under Regulation 25(7)(a) of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 on 12 occasions covering 6 quarters and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions attached to the Certificate E of Registration which are statutory in nature, as prescribed Decision Date : 23-05-2006 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9523/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
160	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS Vs PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. AND ORS. – [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 5022005 INSC 349 Judge : AR. LAKSHMANAN,S.N. VARIAVA 509-A-B; D-E) •Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd v. Reserve Bank of India, [1992) 2 SCC 343, referred to. 2. The SEBI guidelines, which have been relied upon by the appellant, were clarified on 13th August, 1992 wherein it has been stated that these guidelines do not to issue of securities by existing private/closely held and other unlisted companies. In view of this clarification, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment wherein it has been held thatthe SEBI guidelines were not applicable to the Respondent Company. [506-F-G) 3. There is nothing Decision Date : 09-08-2005 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/12640/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
161	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer TECHNIP SA Vs SMS HOLDING (PVT.) LTD. AND ORS. – [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 2232005 INSC 272 Judge : RUMA PAL,ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER Co1ttpanies. IFP was shareholder in Technip and Coflexip. Dispute arose as to the date of acquisition. On complaint of Seamec G 223 H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. – A shareholders before SEBI , it was held that French Law was applicable to the takeover for the date of acquisition. It found that Technip had Qbtained control of Coflexip in July 2001 without Public offer. SEBI directed Technip to make public announcement as required under the Securities And Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, Decision Date : 11-05-2005 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/9258/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
162	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer ARVIND MOHAN JOHARI AND ANR. Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. – [2005] 3 S.C.R. 12042005 INSC 254 Judge : D.M. DHARMADHIKARI,N. SANTOSH HEGDE,S.B. SINHA and Regulations of the Exchange. The Exchange has also from time to time apprised SEBI about default of Century Consultants Ltd. in making Pay-in obligations in the aforesaid settlements and D completion of settlements as stated herein above.” It is urged that the Appellants herein were aware Exchange are directed to deposit the money lying in the credit of the Company/ Appellants as early as possible subject to the determination of the pending enquiry by SEBI . If any enquiry is pending, SEBI shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.” This Court directed release of Decision Date : 04-05-2005 | Case No : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition/47/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
163	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. Vs M/S. SHIVALIK AGRO POLY PRODUCTS AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 3932004 INSC 520 Judge : G.P. MATHUR,C.K. THAKKER,R.C. LAHOTI Exchange Broker’s Forum °’!· SEBI , (2001] 3 SCC 482, referred to. 2. There is no material on record to show that the overall amount B received by the Government by way of fee from the Registration department far exceeds the overall expenditure incurred in maintaining the said department. Decision Date : 14-09-2004 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2122/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
164	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SWEDISH MATCH AB AND ANR. Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD, INDIA AND ANR. – [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 7452004 INSC 470 Judge : S.B. SINHA,A.K. MATHUR,N. SANTOSH HEGDE shareholders and the same was brought to the notice of SEBI . SEBI served a show cause notice upon the appellants as to why no public announcement was made in terms of Regulations 10 and G 11(1) of the Regulations. SEBI , upon hearing of the appellants, observed that the acquisition of falling under proviso to Regulation 12 does not automatically absolve them from making public announcement of their taking over control of the target company. Securities Appellate Tribunal/SAT affirmed the order of SEBI . Hence H the present appeal. SWEDISH MATCH AB v. SECURITIES & Decision Date : 25-08-2004 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/2361/2003 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
165	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CLARIANT INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANR. Vs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA – [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 8432004 INSC 471 Judge : A.K. MATHUR,S.B. SINHA,N. SANTOSH HEGDE 21.11.1997, By reason of an order dated 16.10.2002, the Board directed : “13.1 In view of the findings made above, in exercise of the G powers conferred upon me under sub-section (3) of Section 4 read with Section 11 B SEBI Act 1992 read with regulations 44 and 45 of the said and DDA and Others v. Joginder S. Monga and Others, [2004] B 2 sec 297. It was further submitted that those shareholders who had purchased the shares later than the date fixed by the SEBI were not entitled to receive any compensation by way of interest as they were not the shareholders on Decision Date : 25-08-2004 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/3183/2003 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
166	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs R.S. PAI AND ANR. – [2002] 2 S.C.R. 8892002 INSC 178 Judge : BRIJESH KUMAR,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI,M.B. SHAH and Ors. without specific authorization from the Head Office B of the Bank and without adhering to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the SEBI . On 2.6.1993, on the written complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, case No. RC l(BSC)/93-Mum. was registered under Decision Date : 03-04-2002 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1045/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
167	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NARINDERJIT SINGH SAHNI AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1142001 INSC 503 Judge : S.N. VARIAVA,G.B. PATTANAIK,U.C. BANERJEE petitioner No. 2.0kara Agro Industries Ltd., commenced its business w.e.f. 7.5.1993 upon incorporation under the provisions of Companies Act 1956. The records further depict that on 18th Dec., 1997 the Securities & Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) issued a. notice in the daily newspaper stating that termination of registration as financial managers by SEBI – the problem according to the petitioner has been by reason of subsequent closure of company’s A/cs by main banker viz., Oriental Bank of Commerce and post dated cheques of the Company where returned unpaid and resultantly several FIRs Decision Date : 12-10-2001 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/245/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
168	English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada          मराठी – Marathi          ਪੰਜਾਬੀ – Punjabi Disclaimer VINAY BUBNA Vs STOCK EXCHANGE, MUMBAI AND ORS – [1999] 3 S.C.R. 12221999 INSC 295 Judge : B.N. KIRPAL,S. RAJENDRA BABU appellant wanted Rules 16 and 43 of the Stock Exchange to be D amended. Letters were written by him to SEBI and other authorities including the Stock Exchange. When efforts in this behalf failed, a writ petition was fi!ed in the Bombay High Court by the appellant with a prayer that Rules 16 and 43 Decision Date : 28-07-1999 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4120/1999 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
169	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer VINEET NARAIN AND ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 5951997 INSC 826 Judge : S.C. SEN,J.S. VERMA,S.P. BHARUCHA Central Government or such officers as are or have been on deputation to a Public Sector Undertaking; officers of the Reserve Bank of India of the level equivalent to Joint Secretary or above in the Central Government, Executive G Directors and above of the SEBI and Chairman & in the Government and certain other public institutions like the RBI, SEBI , nationalised banks, etc. and its scope is limited to official acts. The slated objective of the Directive is H to protect decision making level officers from the threat and ignominy of c ·- VINEETv. Decision Date : 18-12-1997 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL)/340/1993 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
170	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 581996 INSC 101 Judge : G.B. PATTANAIK,S.C. AGRAWAL not discriminatory. H Art. I9( I)( g)-Non-banking Companies prohibited from recovering any 58 ),. RBI v. PEERLESS GENL. FINANCE 59 an1oullf us processing/nulintenance Gharge-Para 4A-Whether violative of A Article 19( I )(g)-Held, not violative- SEBI (Mutual Funds) Re11ulation, that the processing/maintenance charges, E are less than 6% of the endowment sum payable on maturity as per F Regulation SO of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations 1993. The Reserve Bank, on the other hand contended that the Bank was competent lo issue directions contained in Para 4A; that Decision Date : 19-01-1996 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/37/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
171	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer HINDUSTAN LEVER EMPLOYEES’ UNION Vs HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED AND ORS – [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 7231994 INSC 483 Judge : R.M. SAHAI,A.M. AHMADI,S.C. SEN by the SEBI on 11th and 17th June, 1992 which required existing companies wishing to raise foreign equity upto 51 % by taking a decision of the shareholders in a special resolution under Section Sl(l)(A) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that even though subsequently the State Bank Decision Date : 24-10-1994 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/11006/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
172	English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati          हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer BLOOM DEKOR LTD. ETC. ETC. Vs SUBHASH HIMATLAL DESAI AND ORS. ETC. – [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 3221994 INSC 372 Judge : M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,P.B. SAWANT,S. MOHAN Bombay to share broker that the shares of the company had not been listed on the exchange for dealing. H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A It was also alleged that the Registrar to the issue had not made allotments in accordance with SEBI guidelines. There were Decision Date : 09-09-1994 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/1751/1994 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
173	English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUND Vs KARTICK DAS – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1361994 INSC 220 Judge : M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,S. MOHAN,A.S. ANAND Penal Costs of Rs. 25,000 awarded-Constitution of India, Article 142. F The Appellant in C.A. No. 4384 of 1994 is a domestic mutual fund registered with the SEBI along with its investment management agency. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the appellant along with the draft were approved by SEBI after due scrutiny and examina­ tion. SEBI also approved in writing all advertisements and publicity G material. While approving the scheme, SEBI also put in a disclaimer clause which Is a standard requirement in all issues. The appellant started advertising the Decision Date : 20-05-1994 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL/4584/1994 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off