9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 294 - SC - Companies LawLevying the penalty debarring the appellant from accessing the capital market for a period of two years - determination of differential price - Held that - In view of the concession made by the learned Solicitor General of India set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Issues: Concession by Solicitor General, SEBI orders post-impugned judgment, Amendment to SEBI Act, Remittal of case to High Court, Timely disposal request, Registry directions
In this judgment, the Solicitor General of India conceded that the judgment under appeal could not be sustained, leading to its setting aside and remittance of the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The facts subsequent to the impugned judgment included Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) passing two orders in July 1999: one debarring the appellant from the capital market for two years (which had already lapsed) and the other related to the determination of differential price, against which the appellant had filed an appeal pending consideration. The amendment to Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002 was noted. The Supreme Court, based on the concession, set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the case back to the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, restoring LPA No. 236 of 1997. All contentions were left open for further consideration. Given the importance of the legal question at hand and the prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of the appeal, preferably within six months. The parties were granted liberty to approach the Chief Justice of the High Court for an early listing of the matter before the appropriate Division Bench. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the High Court as per the terms outlined in the judgment. The Registry was directed to promptly send the original record of the High Court for further proceedings.
|
