Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Abans Enterprises Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition challenges the following : -
(a) The validity of regulations 6(1)(f) and 13(2)(ba) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 (Settlement Regulations);
(b) Communication dated 31 July 2024 (impugned rejection letter) by which the petitioners’ settlement proposal came to be rejected.
3. The petition also refers to a challenge to the regulation 11-A of the Settlement Regulations. However, no such provision exists in the copy of the Settlement Regulations handed over to us. In any event, no submissions were made in the context of this regulation 11-A.
4. The first petitioner is a publicly listed company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956. It trades shares, currencies, and derivatives on all the leading exchanges in India. The second petitioner is a promoter of the first petition company, with a shareholding of 74.56%.
5. The respondent, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), issued a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 29 August 2023 to the petitioners and seven others regarding the trading in the first petitioner's scrip. The executive summary o
The court held that regulators can impose conditions on settlement applications under the SEBI Act, prioritizing public interest over private vested rights, and dismissed the petition challenging the....
The Petitioner has no vested right to insist on the acceptance of its settlement proposal, and SEBI's decision-making process was fair and justified.
The court emphasized that mixed questions of law and fact, such as res judicata, should not be decided as preliminary issues but rather simultaneously with all other related issues to ensure efficien....
Companies must comply with regulatory requirements for Minimum Public Shareholding before executing capital reductions to protect investor interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of SEBI's Exit Policy and SECC Regulations, finding them in consonance with the SCR Act, and the court's direction for CSE to comply....
Income Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act.
The court affirmed that a show cause notice issued by SEBI is valid despite claims of delay and non-application of mind, emphasizing the necessity of fair opportunity for the petitioners to respond.
Rules and regulations which are framed by Central Government or IBBI are to be placed before Parliament in terms of Section 241 of IBC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
