19-Year Old Filed Petition in Delhi HC Alleged SEBI’s Irregularities in IPO Approvals

  • Home
  • 19-Year Old Filed Petition in Delhi HC Alleged SEBI’s Irregularities in IPO Approvals

Studycafe | Nov 27, 2021 | Views 265605

19-Year Old Filed Petition in Delhi HC Alleged SEBI’s Irregularities in IPO Approvals

19-Year Old Filed Petition in Delhi HC Alleged SEBI’s Irregularities in IPO Approvals

19-Year Old Filed Petition in Delhi HC Alleged SEBI’s Irregularities In IPO Approvals. The Delhi High Court on Friday Slammed a petitioner for claiming that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) approves IPOs (initial public offerings) in a rushed and unchecked way without proper checking.

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a 19-year-complaint old’s against the haste with which initial public offerings (IPOs) are approved, stating that “it is a blackmailing sort of petition” and asking if it was submitted to harass some company and “at whose behest.”

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh remarked, Noting that the Petitioner, who sought the formation of a new body for IPO approvals, was only 19 years old and had little to no chance of understanding the complexities of a securities market, the Division Bench of

Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh remarked, “We want to cross examine this boy.” “How are IPOs (initial public offerings) decided?” we’d like to ask you, Mr. Counsel. What are the various sorts of shareholdings? How will a 19-year-old guy know if you (petitioner’s counsel) don’t know?

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the youngster was a retail investor looking for a framework to ensure the securities market’s proper operation.

Ketan Kumar, through Advocate Siddharth Acharya, filed the petition days after the Paytm IPO fiasco.

The Bench noted right away that the petitioner had come to the Court without making any representations to the relevant authority or Government. It was presumed that the actions, which were started under the pretext of public interest, were being carried out at the request of a corporation.

It went on to say that the petition was brought with a vested interest in mind, and that the lawyer himself might not be aware of the complexity.

The Bench informed petitioner’s counsel, “We’ll put one question to you and you’ll answer “mujhe kuch nahi pata” (I don’t know anything).

As a result, the Bench warned the counsel to avoid getting engaged in such business problems, or “blackmailing type petitions,” where fees could be high.

At this point, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma informed the Bench that a similar petition had been brought previously, and that the Delhi High Court had ruled that only a brief description of the company was required so that an investor is aware of the company’s dangers.

The petition was withdrawn unconditionally after receiving negative feedback from the Court.

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button

Join Membership

In case of Any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's What's App Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Leave a Reply