Question

An Executive Director (E

  • A conducts a search and seizure. During the proceedings, the IA records the statement of a Director of "Z-Plus Brokers" under oath. The Director later argues that the statement is inadmissible because the ED did not obtain "Prior Board Approval" in a formal meeting before directing the IA. Is the Director’s contention valid?
  • D of SEBI orders an investigation into "Z-Plus Brokers" based on a tip-off about 'Wash Trades.' The Investigating Authority (I
A Yes, because Section 11C of the SEBI Act requires the "Board" to form an opinion, and an individual ED cannot substitute their judgment for the collective Board.
B Yes, but only if the search and seizure was conducted without a warrant from a Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
C No, because SEBI investigations are "Administrative" and not "Quasi-Judicial," therefore the rules of evidence and natural justice do not apply until the adjudication stage.
D No, because Regulation 5 specifically designates the ED as an "Appointing Authority," and statements recorded by the IA are deemed to be evidence under Regulation 5(5).
E Yes, because the IA must be a "Division Chief" or above, and if the ED appointed a junior officer, the entire investigation is coram non judice.
Practice Next

Hey! Ask a query