Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in NDPS Act Cases: State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, Offences and Penalties

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in NDPS Act Cases: State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court correctly granted bail to the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without adhering to the stringent conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the Act. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law (Narcotics) Case […]

Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in NDPS Act Cases: State of Kerala vs. Rajesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction due to non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: Vijendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 752

/ A.S. Bopanna, Criminal Law, Food Adulteration, Judges, Offences and Penalties, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with Section 10(7), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with Section 13(2), Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court overturns conviction due to non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: Vijendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 752 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, regarding the delivery of the Public Analyst’s report to the accused, warrants the overturning of

Supreme Court overturns conviction due to non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: Vijendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) INSC 752 Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes conviction due to lack of sample correlation in NDPS Act case: Vijay Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Criminal Law, Criminal Law with Burden of Proof, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Navin Sinha, NDPS Act with Section 15, NDPS Act with Section 50, NDPS Act with Section 8, Offences and Penalties

Supreme Court quashes conviction due to lack of sample correlation in NDPS Act case: Vijay Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution must conclusively establish the link between the seized sample and the sample tested in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court quashes conviction due to lack of sample correlation in NDPS Act case: Vijay Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Stringent Penalties under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act for Record-Keeping Anomalies: Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Offences and Penalties, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 with Section 23, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 with Section 4, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Stringent Penalties under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act for Record-Keeping Anomalies: Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether stringent penalties for minor clerical errors in record-keeping under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 are constitutional. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Stringent Penalties under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act for Record-Keeping Anomalies: Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Insider” under SEBI Regulations in Satyam Scam Case (14 May 2018)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 246, Insider Trading, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 12A, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15G

Supreme Court Clarifies Insider Trading Definition in Satyam Scam Case LEGAL ISSUE: Definition of “Insider” under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992. CASE TYPE: Securities Law/Insider Trading Case Name: Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. Securities and Exchange Board of India Judgment Date: 14 May 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14 May 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Insider” under SEBI Regulations in Satyam Scam Case (14 May 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies fraudulent trading in derivatives: SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading (2018)

/ Adjudication, Derivatives Market, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15HA, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15T, Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, Securities Law

Supreme Court on Synchronized Trading and Market Manipulation in Derivatives LEGAL ISSUE: Whether synchronized and reversed trades in the derivatives market constitute fraudulent and unfair trade practices. CASE TYPE: Securities Law Case Name: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd. Judgment Date: 8 February 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 8

Supreme Court clarifies fraudulent trading in derivatives: SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Non-Intermediary Front-Running” under SEBI Regulations: SEBI vs. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017)

/ Judges, N. V. Ramana, Ranjan Gogoi, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 with Regulation 4(1), Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities Law

Date of the Judgment: September 20, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 763 Judges: N. V. Ramana, J., Ranjan Gogoi, J. Can individuals who are not intermediaries be held liable for front-running in the securities market? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a batch of appeals, clarifying the scope of the Securities and

Supreme Court Clarifies “Non-Intermediary Front-Running” under SEBI Regulations: SEBI vs. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the jurisdiction of trial courts under the SEBI Act: Classic Credit Ltd. vs. SEBI (21 August 2017)

/ Appeals and Revisions, Arun Mishra, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 407, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 24, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 26, Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct court for trying offenses under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act). CASE TYPE: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Classic Credit Ltd. Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21 August 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 729 Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI,

Supreme Court settles the jurisdiction of trial courts under the SEBI Act: Classic Credit Ltd. vs. SEBI (21 August 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top