- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court (SC) has expunged adverse remarks made by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) against the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in one of its recent orders about the handling of an investors’ complaint.“We are of the opinion that certain observations made in the impugned (SAT) order were not called for, such as ‘the computer-generated...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court (SC) has expunged adverse remarks made by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) against the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in one of its recent orders about the handling of an investors’ complaint.
“We are of the opinion that certain observations made in the impugned (SAT) order were not called for, such as ‘the computer-generated disposal of a serious complaint speaks volume on the conduct of the respondents’ as well as the part of the (SAT) order relating to ‘vested interest in not deciding the matter’ were not at all called for,” the SC stated.
“May be there was some remiss on the part of the SEBI to act as a regulator, but casting aspersions was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the adverse observations made in Paragraph Number 20 (of the SAT order) are hereby diluted,” the SC further stated.
It may be recalled that on November 14, 2019, the SAT had stated in one of its orders that “We have no hesitation in stating that the SEBI as a regulator in the instant case has not performed its duties and has kept the complaint pending for more than six years which speaks volumes by itself. The SAT fails to fathom as to why the complaint could not have been decided unless SEBI officials had a vested interest in not deciding the matter”.