Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: securities contracts regulation act 1956 42 of 1956 section 23 penalties Page 1 of about 32,297 results (0.565 seconds)

Jul 03 2006 (HC)

i.T.C. Limited Vs. Pradeep Anand and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR67(Delhi)

..... to one year, or with fine, or with both.35. the notification issued in pursuance of section 16, which is in question, is as under:59. restrictions on sale or purchase of securities. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 16 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the central government, being of opinion that it is necessary to prevent undesirable speculation in ..... ) all contracts in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) entered into after the date of notification issued there under shall be illegal.34. the penal provisions form part of chapter v of the scr act and in terms of section 23, there is penal consequences for violation of the provisions of section 16 of the scr act. the relevant portion of section 23 reads as under:23. penalties(1 ..... ) any person who (b) enters into any contract in contravention of any of the provisions contained in section 13 or section 16; or shall, on conviction, be punishable with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1995 (TRI)

Tracstar Investments Limited and Vs. Gordon Woodroffe Limited and ors.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (1996)87CompCas941

..... sale was made only to cripple the company thus causing great damage to the company and that the sale was against the provisions of section 13 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956. the court upheld all these arguments and finally declared the transfer fraudulent, illegal, void and a nullity and directed the rectification of the ..... temporary injunction granted under this rule (order 39, rule 1) has not the effect of making all subsequent alienation of the property void. he only incurs the penalty provided under rule 2(3)." (e) darbari ram v. ghulam farid-fazal karim, air 1930 lahore 858 and kusuma dei v. malati bewa, air 1969 ..... been some reasons for the same as rightly pointed out by shri sarkar, perhaps to avoid coming within the mischief of the provisions of section 40a and 42 of the listing agreements and it had already contacted purchasers for the said number of shares. it is also worth noting that respondents nos ..... has discretion to decide, on the facts of a case, whether to entertain the case or to relegate the same to a civil suit.42. having thus held that we have the discretion to decide this matter, the question that arises in respect of the instant petition is whether ..... corporate entities, they are members of the transferor company, namely, sspl.they are not shareholders of gwl. they have come before us as aggrieved persons.23. they are the majority shareholders of sspl. it is also an admitted fact that the board of directors of sspl does not enjoy the majority .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 24 1997 (HC)

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [1999]97CompCas301(Guj); (1998)2GLR1436

..... bonds. (6) while delivering the judgment in v. b. rangaraj's case [1992] 73 comp cas 201 (sc), the supreme court did not consider the provisions of section 22a(3)(b) of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, which were applicable when v. b. rangaraj's case [1992] 73 comp cas 201 (sc) was decided. those provisions empowered the company to refuse registration of transfer of ..... further pointed out that in the case of gujarat bottling co. ltd. v. coca cola co. : air1995sc2372 , the supreme court was concerned with a public limited company and in paragraph 42 thereof, the supreme court has applied the principle enunciated in the case of v. b. rangaraj [1992] 73 comp cas 201 (sc) to the public limited company also. 70. it ..... would not lie in view of the judgment of the supreme court in canara bank v. nuclear power corporation of india ltd. [1995] 84 comp cas 70; [1995] 3 jt 42. (ii) the plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima facie case that the suit shares are not freely transferable. defendant no. 1-company being a public company, the articles ..... the shareholders' agreement. 5. article 33 of the articles of association of the company provides : '.... no transfer of shares shall be registered in violation of the shareholders' agreement dated april 23, 1991, between the giic and mil (plaintiff) so long as the said agreement subsists.' 6. of course, there was an absolute prohibition against transfer of shares during the gestation period .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 2004 (HC)

Asha Oil Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR721; IV(2005)BC29

..... action under the securitisation act. that, section 37 is read as under :'section 37. application of other law not barred. the provisions of this act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992 (15 of 1992 ..... ), the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, ..... 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force'.'that, the petitioner submits that, if the dues of the bank could not be satisfied as per the notice and in pursuance of section ..... may please quash and set aside the notice dated 28.1.2004 issued by the respondent no. 4 under section 13(2) of the securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests act, 2002.d. pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the action as contemplated in the notice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2005 (HC)

Solaris System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court : Kerala

Reported in : IV(2006)BC536; 2006(3)KLT121; [2006]72SCL168(Ker)

..... exchange board of india act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the recovery of ..... debts due to banks and financial institutions act 1993 (51 of ..... clauses under section 13 of the act specifically refer to borrower; but it cannot be said that the provisions contained in section 13 are in derogation of rddb act.15. section 37 of the act clearly lays down that 'the provisions of the act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the companies act 1956 (1 of 1956), the securities contracts (regulation) act 1956 (42 of 1956), the securities and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1998 (HC)

A. Vaidyanathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2000]101CompCas224(Mad)

..... enables the central government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the object of the said act. among other things, we are concerned with section 30(2)(b) of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as act no. 42 of 1956), which runs as follows :'30(1).--the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, make rules for the purpose of carrying ..... by the petitioner. 8. i have carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956 (act no. 42 of 1956), was enacted by parliament in order to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the business of dealing therein by providing for certain other matters connected therewith. section 2(h) speaks about securities. it is an inclusive definition. securities include shares, scrips, stocks, bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other, marketable ..... one notified under section 13 of the securities contracts (regulation) act. since almost all the major cities in india have been notified under section is of the said act, any person carrying on business in securities without becoming a member of a recognised stock exchange will be liable for prosecution under section 23 of the said act 42 of 1956. in addition to all his contracts becoming illegal, by virtue of section 13. stock exchanges .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1984 (HC)

Escorts Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)

..... policy does not contravene any statues and in particular the provisions of the does not contravene any statue and in particular the provisions of the fera or the securities contracts (regulations) act 42 of 1956, and the rbi act, 1934, it must be given effect to. we do not find anything in the policy formulated under the impugned press release and the circulars (exh.'a' and ' ..... ., their designated brokers and power of attorney holders, the same were executed by the pnb through nri (external) account on various dates up to april 23, 1983, and also, therefore, conforming to the bye-laws and regulations of the delhi stock exchange. on may 27, 1983, the petitioner-company addressed letters to respondents nos. 20 and 21, calling for particulars; but ..... purchased, as respondents nos. 20 and 21 and shirin khushi mehta and anandlal hiralal sheth, two of the transferors of the shares in question as respondents nos. 22 and 23 representing themselves and other transferors of the shares purchased by respondents nos. 4 to 16. the petitioners were also permitted to amend the averments in their affidavit enabling them to ..... in which securities are registered or inscribed if he has any ground for suspecting that the transfer involves any contravention of the provisions of this section'. thus, while a person purchasing shares without obtaining permission of the rbi so denied the right to obtain the transfer of shares registered in the books of the company and is exposed to departmental penalties and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1996 (HC)

Rakesh Gupta and Others, Etc. Vs. Hyderabad Stock Exchange Ltd. and Ot ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1996AP413; 1996(2)ALT757; [1999]96CompCas645b(AP)

..... raised,have been ordered to be heard along with thewrit appeal.5. the securities contracts (regulation) act (act 42 of 1956) is enacted to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the business of dealing therein and by providing for certain other matters connected therewith. a 'stock exchange' is defined under section 2(j) of the said act to mean 'any body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, constituted for the ..... correction under art. 226 of the constitution and, even if there be jurisdiction, a discretionary desistence from its exercise is wise, proper and in consonance with the canons of restraint.23. a bench decision of the madras high court in the case of film division, bombay v. r.m. seshadri, (1973) 2 lab lj 444, is illustrative of the exercise of ..... ) expulsion from membership, (3) suspension from membership for a specified period, and (4) any other penalty of a like nature not involving the payment of money. sebi is empowered by section 10 of the act to make bye-laws for all or any of the matters specified in section 9 or amend any bye-laws made by the stock exchange either on a request .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2002 (HC)

Delhi Stock Exchange and anr. Vs. K.C. Sharma and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002VIIAD(Delhi)432; 98(2002)DLT234

..... all the stock exchanges with which we are concerned.'44. in terms of the provisions contained in section 30 of the securities contracts (regulation) act, 1956, a regulation known as the securities contracts (regulation) rules, 1957 was framed. the companies (issue of share certificates) rules was passed and the preference shares (regulation of dividends) act, 1960 was passed. in 1966 the capital issue (application for consent) rules, 1966 was passed. in 1969 ..... person shall comply with the conditions of the listing agreement with that stock exchange. under section 22, an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the stock exchange to list securities of public companies. section 23 provides for penalties in relation to the matters specified therein. section 29 of the act is in the following terms:'protection of action taken in good faith.-no suit, prosecution ..... stock exchange. that is why the securities contract (regulation) act, 1956 was enacted to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by prohibiting certain business action and by providing for some other connected matters.'42. it is worthwhile to note the history of the formation of the stock exchanges. bombay securities contracts act, 1925 was enacted which governed the dealings in stock exchanges. thereafter, securities contract regulation act, 1956 being act 42 of 1956 was enacted which came into force .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1979 (SC)

Desh Bandhu Gupta and Co. and ors. Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Associatio ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1979SC1049; [1980]50CompCas84(SC); (1979)4SCC565; [1979]3SCR373

..... in extenso which ran thus:new delhi, the 27th june 1969.notifications.o. 2561. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 16 of the securities contracts (regulation) act 1956 (42 of 1956) the central government, being of opinion that it is necessary to prevent undesirable speculation in securities in the whole of india, hereby declares that no person, in the territory to which the said ..... act extends, shall, save with the permission of the central government, enter into any contract for the sale or purchase of securities other than such spot delivery contract ..... .2. the delhi stock exchange association ltd., new delhi (the respondent herein) is a company incorporated under the indian companies act, 1913. it has received recognition from the central government under section 4 of the securities contracts regulation) act (xlii) of 1956 for the purpose of the said act. one desh bandhu gupta (appellant no. 2) carried on business as a share-broker in the firm name and style .....

Tag this Judgment!


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