Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: punjab municipal act 1911 Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.277 seconds)

Oct 11 2002 (TRI)

Kensigton Investment Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Oct-11-2002

..... he was elected that: "there is nothing in the show cause notice or the ultimate order to hold how the act of the appellant had "obstructed the working of the municipal council" or was "against the interest of the council". we are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that not only ..... the show cause notice. in this context he cited the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in tarlochan devsharma v. state of punjab (2001) 6 scc 260 wherein the hon'ble court was considering an appeal challenging the removal of the petitioner from the post of president ..... the portfolio investment scheme (pis) is operated.8. respondent no.1 is an authority established under the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (the act) entrusted with the duty of protecting the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market ..... the principles laid down by the supreme court are binding on the adjudicating officer of sebi also. therefore, his observation that "whether or not the act of non disclosure was intentional or unintentional the failure on the part of the acquirer in complying with the regulation 7 of the takeover regulation, ..... "balmeworthy" conduct", that the court had further observed that - "the high court apparently fell in error in treating the "blameworthy conduct" under the act as equivalent to the commission of a criminal offence, overlooking the position that the "blameworthy conduct" in the adjudication proceedings is established by proof only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2002 (TRI)

Hemant S. Sonawala (Huf) by Its Vs. the Chairman, Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Oct-29-2002

..... 15h. that is, the penalty for violation of both the provisions is the same. it is also seen that the supreme court in the case of municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad vs. ben hiraben manilal (air 1983 sc 537), where the show cause notice was issued under a different provision, held ..... to those stated in the show-cause notice and traversed into areas beyond the parameters of the show-cause notice (tarlochan dev sharma v. state of punjab (2001) 6 scc 260.28. this is all the more so since after the first show-cause notice alleging a violation or regulation 10, the ..... order dated 4.8.2000 "to enquire into and adjudge contravention of sub section (ii) of section 15h of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (the act) read with sub clause (iii)(a) of clause (e) of sub regulation (1) of regulation 3 read with sub regulation (2) of ..... in accordance with the provisions of law, 75% of the shares or voting rights in a company, shall acquire either by himself or through persons acting in concert with him any additional shares or voting rights, unless such acquirer makes a public announcement to acquire shares in accordance with regulations." section 15h ..... acquire shares, in case the acquirer proposes to acquire such number of shares or voting rights which taking together the shareholding / voting rights of persons acting in concert with him, shall entitle the acquirer to exercise 10% or more of the voting rights in the target company.regulation 10, therefore, requires .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2002 (TRI)

Ramprasad Somani Vs. the Chairman, Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Decided on : Sep-27-2002

..... to a 'person aggrieved' is conferred in diverse contexts. it occurs in the ale house act, the bankruptcy acts, copyright act, highway act, licensing acts, milk and dairies (amendment) act, rating and valuation act, summary jurisdiction act, union committee act, local acts, in certiorari proceedings and the defence of realm regulations to mention only a few. the ..... be aggrieved by an order depriving him of participation in public offer approaching the tribunal challenging such order in an appeal under section 15t. in punjab state industrial development corporation v. sebi & others (2001) 32 scl 631; ashwin doshi v. sebi (appeal no.44/2001) the appeals ..... distinguish between these two positions i may refer to a few more decisions. in re kitson, ex p. sugden (thomas) and sons ltd ((1911) 2 kb 109 at 112-114), it was further explained that "the mere fact that an order is wrongly made does not of itself ..... 2002 sebi decided to refer the said violations for adjudication in terms of section 15a of the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (the act).4. the appellant claiming to be aggrieved by sebi's order that regulations 10 & 12 did not attract to the acquisition and ..... exchange board of india (substantial acquisition of shares and takeovers) regulations, 1997 (the 1997 regulations) by respondent no.2 (shri tayal) alongwith persons acting in concert with him in regard to acquisition of shares /voting rights/control of the said bank. sebi forwarded copies of the complaints to shri .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //