{"id":168538,"date":"2009-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-30T01:04:50","modified_gmt":"2015-06-29T19:34:50","slug":"shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009<\/div>\n
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                              .....\n<\/pre>\n
                                                   F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00931
\n                                                  Dated, the 30th January, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
 Appellant      : Shri S.K. Kapoor<\/p>\n
 Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)<\/p>\n
      This matter was heard on 15.01.2009 pursuant to Commission’s notices
\ndated 05.12.2008 and 11.12.2008.       Appellant was present in person.
\nRespondents were present through Ms.Vandana Mittal, AGM, Shri J.Shandilya,
\nAGM and Shri Aman Jain, AGM.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Appellant had filed his RTI-application dated 08.04.2008 before the
\nCPIO, SEBI for 10 main items of queries, with sub-sections in almost all the
\nqueries. The CPIO provided a point-wise reply to the appellant on 09.05.2008.
\nAggrieved by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant went in first-appeal before the
\nAppellate Authority on 18.05.2008. The Appellate Authority directed, in his
\norder dated 03.07.2008, that no further information was to be disclosed to the
\nappellant apart from what had already been disclosed to him by the CPIO.
\nAppellant thereafter came in second-appeal before the Commission against this
\norder of the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
3.     On perusing the documents submitted before me and on hearing
\nboth parties, the appellant’s queries, as contained in his RTI-application dated
\n08.04.2008 (copy attached to this order as Annexe), are taken up for decision as
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
Item No.1 (a) to 1(e):\n<\/p>\n
        The information requested by the appellant through this query pertains to
\na third-party, viz. the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India Limited.\n<\/p>\n
       NSE has filed a written-statement dated 13.01.2009 before the
\nCommission, stating that they were not in a position to comment on all aspects of
\nthe second-appeal of the appellant as they were not provided the requisite
\ndocuments by the SEBI, who had informed them about the CIC’s direction dated
\n10.11.2008 to file their written-submissions in the present second-appeal.\n<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                        Page 1 of 7<\/span>
\n        They further stated that there were third-parties other than the Stock
\nExchange in the above matter, who should be consulted before a decision is
\ntaken about disclosure of the requested information.\n<\/p>\n
       It is their further submission that as the Stock Exchange is not a ‘public
\nauthority’ \u23af CIC’s decision dated 07.06.2007 declaring NSE as public
\nauthority having been stayed by the Delhi High Court \u23af they cannot be
\nobligated to respond to the queries of the appellant. However, from the
\nsubmissions received from the third-party (the NSE), it would appear that they
\nwere willing to cooperate with the ongoing RTI-proceeding and to put forward
\ntheir own case as well as the case of the third-parties regarding the
\nconfidentiality of the information for which disclosure has been requested by the
\nappellant through his RTI-application dated 08.04.2008.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       Considering all aspects of the matter, it is directed that the appeal for the
\nlimited purpose of item no.1 of the RTI-query of the appellant be remitted back
\nto the Appellate Authority, SEBI with a direction to decide de-novo this item of
\nthe RTI-request of the appellant within 4 weeks of the receipt of this order after
\ngiving an opportunity to the third-parties \u23af the NSE as well as other parties,
\nwhose names can be ascertained from the NSE \u23af to put-forth their submission
\nregarding the disclosure of the requested information. Appellate Authority may
\nalso give a hearing to the appellant in this matter.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.2:\n<\/p>\n
       According to the appellant, information corresponding to this item has
\nalready been provided to him. Hence, no need for further disclosure of
\ninformation.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.3 (all sub-items):\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant has stated that he finds contradictions in the replies he has
\nreceived for several RTI-applications, from SEBI.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       It is not possible to consider the alleged contradictions or otherwise in the
\nreplies furnished to him for his several RTI-applications in the course of this
\nappeal. It is, therefore, held that this matter shall not be progressed any further
\nwithin the scope of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                         Page 2 of 7<\/span>
\n Item No.4:\n<\/p>\n
        Respondents pointed out that they have been making the offer to the
\nappellant for inspection of the documents \/ records held by them (SEBI) during
\nthe hearings of his earlier second-appeals as well as the first-appeals. Case in
\npoint is CIC Appeal No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00575, decided on 21.02.2007, in which
\nit was clearly recorded that the respondents (SEBI) offered the present appellant
\nto inspect the files and should he wish to carry out the inspection, he should
\napproach the respondents within 1 week of the receipt of that order. Similarly, in
\nthe first appellate order dated 04.07.2008, appellant was informed that “SEBI is
\nstill willing to give an opportunity to the appellant to inspect all available files in
\nthe matter.”\n<\/p>\n
        It was the contention of the respondents, therefore, that their offer to the
\nappellant to inspect the files and documents was an open-ended one, which was
\nreiterated by them during the course of hearings of the appellant’s petitions.
\nRespondents also pointed out that the appellant was scheduled to inspect the files
\nand documents held by them, on 17.02.2009 in another RTI-proceeding before
\nthe SEBI.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       Since the appellant is scheduled to inspect the files and the records on
\n17.02.2009, it is directed that the CPIO, SEBI shall arrange for the appellant to
\ninspect the files and documents pertaining to this item of query as well on the
\nsame day (i.e. 17.02.2009). CPIO shall send an advance communication to the
\nappellant that the files and documents relating to this item of query would also be
\nallowed to be inspected by him, along with the other requested documents in
\nanother RTI-proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
       Should the appellant fail to inspect the documents and files on 17.02.2009,
\nno further opportunity shall be extended to him.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.5 (d):\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant has pleaded for the disclosure of item 5(d) in his second-appeal
\nbefore the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
        In this regard, the respondents informed that the information in the above
\nquery did not exist and as such, no obligation could be cast on them to disclose it
\nto the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                           Page 3 of 7<\/span>
\n Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       As this information is said to be non-existent, no obligation for its
\ndisclosure can be placed on the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.6(a) & 6(b):\n<\/p>\n
       It would appear from these queries that the appellant is attempting to
\nengage the respondents as well as the third-party, the NSE in a dialogue about
\nthe range of their respective powers and the basis of imposing fines and so on.
\nHe is not entitled to receive this as information as it goes beyond the scope of
\nSection 2(f) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       The reply furnished to him by the respondents that they were not obliged
\nto provide this information and, that he can access the details about the rules
\nregarding imposition of fines, etc. in the rules and bye-laws of the NSE, is
\nentirely valid.\n<\/p>\n
       The appellant cannot be authorized to use the respondents or the
\nthird-party, NSE, as his consultants in such matters.\n<\/p>\n
      There shall be no obligation to disclose the above information.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.6(c) & 6(d):\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant’s case is that according to the requisition dated 09.05.2008
\nreceived from the CPIO, he deposited Rs.24\/- for the disclosure of the complete
\nreport of the investigating authority, which was never provided to him.\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents clarified that an amount of Rs.24\/- was demanded from the
\nappellant through CPIO’s communication dated 09.05.2008, not for transmitting
\nthe so-called investigation report, but for certain NSE Circular (12 pages). They
\nalso pointed out that they had asked him to deposit Rs.36\/- towards supply of a
\ncopy of the criminal complaint filed before the ACCMM, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
      Never was SEBI committed to provide to him the Investigation Report,
\nwhich \u23af they had already intimated to him \u23af did not even exist.
\nDecision:\n<\/p>\n
       Commission’s decision as regards item 5(d) above will apply here. The
\nappellant’s complaint is without basis.\n<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                        Page 4 of 7<\/span>
\n Item No.7(a) to 7(d):\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant has stated that the replies furnished by the CPIO and the AA
\nwere misleading. He wishes to have specific replies regarding disposal of each
\nof the petitions and e-mails, details of which were enclosed to his RTI-petition
\ndated 08.04.2008.\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents pointed out that they were in a position to allow the appellant
\ninspection of the files in respect of the applications and the e-mails appellant had
\ndirected at SEBI. They further stated that inspection of these files shall also be
\nallowed to the appellant on the already scheduled date of inspection by the
\nappellant, i.e. 17.02.2009. These files will have the materials on how his several
\npetitions and e-mails were dealt-with\u23afin case they were received and processed
\nby SEBI.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
      It is directed that this information may be disclosed to the appellant
\nthrough inspection of files on 17.02.2009.\n<\/p>\n
       In respect of the applications and the e-mails directed by the appellant to
\nNSE, it is directed that the CPIO, SEBI shall transmit this part of the request
\nwithin 1 week of the receipt of this order, to the NSE for their response.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.8:\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents stated that all this information which the appellant has
\nsought is contained in the files \/ documents, which he is scheduled to inspect on
\n17.02.2009. He shall be able to see these documents and their disposal by SEBI
\nfor himself and take the information as it is contained in the files.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
      It is directed that this information may be disclosed to the appellant
\nthrough inspection of files on 17.02.2009.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.9(a):\n<\/p>\n
        CPIO replied that according to the replies received from the NSE, the
\narbitration proceeding was a quasi-judicial proceeding and there was no scope
\nfor NSE to interfere in the proceeding. NSE was not obliged to answer to the
\nappellant on behalf of the arbitrator, or to process such complaints against the
\narbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                         Page 5 of 7<\/span>
\n Decision:\n<\/p>\n
        I see no infirmity in the communication furnished to the appellant by the
\nNSE. They are absolutely right in holding that they cannot be obligated to reply
\nto the appellant on behalf of a quasi-judicial body \u23af the Arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.9(b) and 9(c):\n<\/p>\n
       NSE has very clearly replied that no such directions were given by the
\nArbitrators for production of Mr.Anil Thukral as witness. They have denied the
\nsurmises \/ assumptions made by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
        The reply of the NSE notwithstanding, it must be stated that appellant was
\nnot entitled to receive the information regarding an extant quasi-judicial
\narbitration proceeding regarding who is being examined as witness and, who is
\nnot.\n<\/p>\n
      There shall be no disclosure obligation for these items of query.\n<\/p>\n
Item 9(d):\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant is not entitled to receive clarifications regarding arbitration
\nproceedings as information under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant is trying to repeatedly engage the respondents regarding the
\nconduct of an arbitration proceeding, which was acknowledgedly quasi-judicial
\nin nature and for which the respondents or the NSE are not obliged to furnish any
\ninformation to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.10:\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents are not obliged to inform the appellant as to the basis on
\nwhich they propose to take a criminal or legal action against him. These matters
\ncan be resolved only in a court of law and not through RTI Act. As such, there
\nshall be no disclosure obligation as regards this query.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Matter disposed of with the above directions.\n<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                          Page 6 of 7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 5.    Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ( A.N. TIWARI )
\n                                             INFORMATION COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n
AT-30012009-47.doc
\n                                                                 Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ….. F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00931 Dated, the 30th January, 2009. Appellant : Shri S.K. Kapoor Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) This matter was heard on 15.01.2009 pursuant to Commission’s notices dated 05.12.2008 and 11.12.2008. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168538","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 30 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 30 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-29T19:34:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-29T19:34:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1866,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 30 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-29T19:34:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 30 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 30 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-29T19:34:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-29T19:34:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009"},"wordCount":1866,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009","name":"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 30 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-29T19:34:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-k-kapoor-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-30-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri S.K. Kapoor vs Securities And Exchange Board Of … on 30 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168538","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168538"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168538\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}