9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1888 - SCH - SEBINo show cause notice issued - principle of natural justice denied - HELD THAT - It would be more appropriate if Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are granted permission to file a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) challenging the order dated 23rd July, 2011. Thirty days' time is granted to the respondents to file an appeal. If the appeal is filed by the respondents within a period of thirty days from today, the Securities Appellate Tribunal will hear the appeal on merits. In the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this Court will continue to the effect that any proceedings, decision or action taken in pursuance of the order dated 23rd July, 2011 passed by the Forward Markets Commission (now SEBI) shall abide by the final result of the appeal.
Issues: Granting permission for a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and setting aside impugned judgments and orders.
Granting permission for a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): The Supreme Court, comprising Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, and Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Court opined that it would be appropriate to grant Respondent Nos.1 and 2 permission to file a statutory appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) challenging the order dated 23rd July, 2011. The Court granted thirty days for the respondents to file the appeal. If filed within this period, the SAT would hear the appeal on its merits. Additionally, the interim order from 22nd March, 2012, was to remain in effect, stipulating that any proceedings or actions following the order dated 23rd July, 2011, by the Forward Markets Commission (now SEBI) would be subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Setting aside impugned judgments and orders: Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders. The special leave petitions were disposed of, and any pending application was also deemed disposed of. The judgment, delivered by a bench of three judges, effectively resolved the issues at hand by allowing the statutory appeal before the SAT and nullifying the previous judgments and orders in the matter.
|
