Photo of Mayur Jaisingh

Mayur Jaisingh

Senior Associate in the Disputes practice at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Mayur can be reached at mayur.jaisingh@cyrilshroff.com

No such thing as innocent fraud: Key implications of the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. SEBI

Summary: The Supreme Court recently ruled[1] on SEBI’s case of fraud against Reliance Industries Ltd. (“RIL”) and twelve of its agents for trades in respect of Reliance Petroleum Ltd. (“RPL”) in 2007. Its emphasis on establishing intent when determining the elements of fraud in Regulation 2 (1) (c) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (“PFUTP Regulations”), has implications for SEBI’s anti-fraud enforcement. This blog examines the fallout of the judgement.

Continue Reading No such thing as innocent fraud: Key implications of the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. SEBI
SEBI’s power to revisit penalty orders, including Nil penalties, under Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992

Summary: Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992, empowers SEBI to revisit and enhance penalties imposed by the adjudicating officer, including orders where no penalty is imposed, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. However, this power can be exercised only if the order passed by the adjudicating officer is erroneous and not in the interests of the securities market. This revisionary power represents a critical component of SEBI’s regulatory framework — it allows the market regulator to modify orders passed by the adjudicating officer.

Continue Reading SEBI’s power to revisit penalty orders, including Nil penalties, under Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992