9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of SEBI's interim order under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act. 2. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. SEBI's authority to impose interim suspension. 4. Impact on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of SEBI's interim order under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act The petitioners challenged the SEBI's order dated 12-3-2001 and subsequent confirmations, which restrained the 1st petitioner and associated companies from undertaking any fresh business as brokers. SEBI issued the order under section 11 read with section 11B of the SEBI Act, citing the need to protect the integrity of the capital market following allegations of insider trading and market manipulation by the 1st petitioner, who was the President of the Bombay Stock Exchange. Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice The petitioners argued that SEBI violated principles of natural justice by not providing a pre-decisional hearing. They contended that the transcripts of telephonic conversations, which formed the basis of SEBI's order, were not disclosed to them until after the petition was filed. SEBI, however, provided a post-decisional hearing on 21-3-2001, where the petitioners were given an opportunity to present their case. The Court held that in cases of urgency, pre-decisional natural justice could be dispensed with and post-decisional hearing suffices. Issue 3: SEBI's authority to impose interim suspension The Court upheld SEBI's power to issue interim orders under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, emphasizing that SEBI is entrusted with the duty to protect investors and regulate the securities market. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Ramrakh R. Bohra v. SEBI and SEBI v. Alka Synthetics Ltd., affirming SEBI's authority to take interim measures pending inquiry to prevent further market manipulation and protect investor interests. Issue 4: Impact on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution The petitioners argued that the SEBI's order violated their fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court rejected this argument, stating that the order was an interim measure pending inquiry and did not constitute a permanent restriction on their business activities. The Court emphasized that SEBI's actions were in public interest to maintain market integrity and investor confidence. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, affirming SEBI's authority to issue interim orders under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act without pre-decisional hearing in urgent situations. The Court directed SEBI to complete the inquiry and pass final orders within four months, keeping all contentions of the parties open for consideration.
|
