- 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
Supreme Court Urges Securities And Exchange Board Of India To Investigate IL&FS Fraud To Protect Investors
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court recently asked the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) about why it should not be directed to probe the IL&FS fraud in order to protect investors.The court stated that the market regulator ought to be look into the issue since it also has adjudicatory powers. It also extended its earlier order which had stayed payment obligations until August...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court recently asked the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) about why it should not be directed to probe the IL&FS fraud in order to protect investors.
The court stated that the market regulator ought to be look into the issue since it also has adjudicatory powers. It also extended its earlier order which had stayed payment obligations until August 13, which is the next date of hearing.
The court specifically questioned SEBI about why it has shirked from investigating the IL&FS fraud. It stated that the allegation was that a lot of third parties had played fraud.
The court stated that as a capital market regulator it has to decide since it also as adjudicatory powers as well.
SEBI’s counsel Arvind Dattar was told that the capital market regulator had it had all the necessary authority.
Incidentally, SEBI had moved the Supreme Court against the Securities Appellate Tribunals’ (SAT) order claiming that it should not be asked to investigate the Rs 460-crore IL&FS securities case since it is beyond its jurisdiction to annul trades.
SEBI had also stated that the the National Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation Ltd ought to be told to look into the IL&FS fraud.
In this connection, it may be recalled that on June 24, the Supreme Court had halted a Rs 435 crore payment by an IL&FS subsidiary until, the SAT and the Bombay High Court passed an order in a case of alleged fraudulent claims.