{"id":228359,"date":"2009-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-04T23:28:07","modified_gmt":"2018-02-04T17:58:07","slug":"shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                               .....\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                      F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/01565<br \/>\n                                      Dated, the 17th July, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant       : Shri Kul Bhushan Jain<\/p>\n<p>Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India<\/p>\n<p>      This matter was heard on 02.04.2009 in the presence of both<br \/>\nparties. Appellant&#8217;s RTI-application dated 17.03.2008 contained<br \/>\nrequests for the following information:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;complete details of AUCTION TRADING with regard to the<br \/>\n     following scrips on the B.S.E., relating to the Settlements, the<br \/>\n     details of are being given hereinunder:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>     S.No.         Scrip Name         Date                 Settlement No.\n\n     1.      DIAMOND CABLES           03.10.2007           BR-0708127\n     2.           -do-                05.10.2007           BR-0708129\n     3.           -do-                18.10.2007           BR-0708138\n     4.      MOTI LAL OSWAL           20.11.2007           BR-0708161\n\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>     This above stated information should include the following<br \/>\n     particulars also:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     5.      Name of the Seller\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     6.      Name of the Buyer\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     7.      Rate of each trade separately\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     8.      Quantity of each trade separately&#8221; [sic]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>2.    This information was declined to be disclosed through a<br \/>\ncommunication dated 09.04.2008 by CPIO citing the exemption under<br \/>\nSection 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Appellate Authority, in his decision<br \/>\ndated 05.06.2008, held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;6.    I have carefully examined the appeal memorandums, the<br \/>\n     appellant&#8217;s applications and replies of the CPIO and find that the<br \/>\n     matter can be decided on merit with the materials on record.<br \/>\n     Further, I find that the issues involved in both the appeals filed by the<br \/>\n     appellant are same and hence, I decided to issue a common order in<br \/>\n     the interest of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>AT-17072009-06.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                  Page 1 of 4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.     The appellant has contended that BSE and NSE fall under the<br \/>\n     definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.<br \/>\n     Nevertheless, the appellant has not preferred any RTI application to<br \/>\n     the said Stock Exchanges. In this context, I observe that the issue as<br \/>\n     to whether the Stock Exchanges would come under the definition of<br \/>\n     public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is pending<br \/>\n     consideration of Hon&#8217;ble Delhi High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     8.     The information pertaining to the auction trading in some of<br \/>\n     the scrips as also the details of the buyers, sellers, quantities and rate<br \/>\n     sought by the appellant are not available with SEBI. The Stock<br \/>\n     Exchanges are normally maintaining such data. Considering BSE and<br \/>\n     NSE as private bodies for the time being, the matter was taken up<br \/>\n     with them as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. They have<br \/>\n     objected the disclosure as stated in paragraphs no.4 above. The CPIO<br \/>\n     has accepted the plea of BSE and NSE and declined the information to<br \/>\n     the appellant. Therefore, the issue to be decided in this case is<br \/>\n     whether the trade details of the brokers and their clients in some of<br \/>\n     the scrips can be disclosed or not under the provisions of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     9.     The appellant has sought the trade details of third parties<br \/>\n     including settlement of trade in auction process. It is matter of fact<br \/>\n     that BSE and NSE are duty bound to maintain such details in<br \/>\n     confidence as per the Circular SMDRP\/Policy\/CIR-39\/2001 dated July<br \/>\n     18, 2001 and the relevant portion of said circular is extracted<br \/>\n     hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           The Exchanges are advised to direct members to include a new<br \/>\n           clause no.7 as given below in the format of the Member-Client<br \/>\n           Agreement prescribed by our earlier circular dated April 11,<br \/>\n           1997 as given below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8216;The member hereby undertakes to maintain, the details of the<br \/>\n           client as mentioned in the client registration form or any other<br \/>\n           information pertaining to the client, in confidence and that he<br \/>\n           shall not disclose the same to any person \/ entity except as<br \/>\n           required under the law, with prior intimation to SEBI.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>           The Exchanges are also advised that the following clause be<br \/>\n           made a part of the bye-laws, rules, regulations of the<br \/>\n           Exchange:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>           &#8216;The Stock Exchange shall maintain the details of the clients of<br \/>\n           the members in confidence and that it shall not disclose to any<br \/>\n           person \/ entity such details of the client as mentioned in the<br \/>\n           client registration form or any other information pertaining to<\/p>\n<p>AT-17072009-06.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                   Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n              the client except as required under the law or by any<br \/>\n             authority.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>      10.    The above circular was issued by SEBI with a view to protect the<br \/>\n      investors and a direction to override the above circular to disclose<br \/>\n      confidential trade details would affect the integrity of SEBI especially<br \/>\n      when the RTI Act exempted the disclosure of such information under<br \/>\n      Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The trade details kept by the Stock<br \/>\n      Exchanges in confidence in their fiduciary relationship with their<br \/>\n      brokers and clients cannot be disclosed unless larger public interest<br \/>\n      warrants its disclosure. This position is clearly enumerated under<br \/>\n      Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. Further, the details of trades of brokers<br \/>\n      and clients are their personal information which is also exempted<br \/>\n      under 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. SEBI being a regulator of securities market<br \/>\n      can not insist the intermediaries and stock exchanges to part with all<br \/>\n      the documents \/ information especially when the disclosure of such<br \/>\n      information is exempted under Section 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(e) and<br \/>\n      Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      11.    Apart from the above, I find that there is no larger public<br \/>\n      interest that warrants the disclosure of information sought by the<br \/>\n      appellant. The appellant has not explained how the disclosure would<br \/>\n      benefit public at large. In short, the information about the trading<br \/>\n      details of third parties is not liable to be disclosed unless that third<br \/>\n      party concurs in the disclosure or otherwise, larger public interest<br \/>\n      warrants the disclosure. In the instant matter, both the ingredients<br \/>\n      such as concurrence from main third parties and public interest are<br \/>\n      absent. In these circumstances, I do not find any necessity to allow<br \/>\n      information to the appellant. The Hon&#8217;ble CIC has also taken similar<br \/>\n      stand in its decision as quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>      F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00609 Dated, the 9th February, 2007, Shri<br \/>\n      Ravinder Kumar Shri Ravinder Yadav, Deputy Commissioner of Police &amp;<br \/>\n      CPIO,<\/p>\n<p>            &#8220;The conclusions of the AA and the CPIO about the nature of<br \/>\n            information at item (i) at para 3 above, are objective as well as<br \/>\n            accurate. Information furnished to a public authority by a third<br \/>\n            party and held by that authority, is not liable to be disclosed<br \/>\n            unless that third party concurs in the disclosure, or if the public<br \/>\n            authority chooses to disclose it in public interest regardless of<br \/>\n            the third party&#8217;s objection. The respondents informed the<br \/>\n            Commission during hearing today (i.e. 8.2.2007) that the third<br \/>\n            party had objected to the disclosure of the information, and<br \/>\n            there was no public interest that would commend disclosing the<br \/>\n            information despite third party&#8217;s objection. The appellant<br \/>\n            could not claim public interest in his being made privy to an<br \/>\nAT-17072009-06.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                   Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n             information which was all about a dispute between two<br \/>\n            altogether different persons&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12.    Taking into account all facts and circumstances in this case, I<br \/>\n      don&#8217;t find any reason to interfere in the matter. Appeal is accordingly<br \/>\n      dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Appellant in his submission has urged that the decision of the<br \/>\nrespondents went against the spirit of the RTI Act. He disputed the<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; averment that the cases cited by them applied in the<br \/>\npresent matter. He has also questioned the Appellate Authority citing<br \/>\nthe circular dated 18th July, 2001 in support of not disclosing the<br \/>\ninformation to the appellant. He believes that the circular was<br \/>\nsuperseded by the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is his contention<br \/>\nthat denial of this variety of information was &#8220;definitely going to<br \/>\nencourage corruption and highhandedness in the working of NSE and<br \/>\nBSE who are very much acting as Government Instrumentalities only<br \/>\nunder the supervision of yet another Government Instrumentality \/<br \/>\nStatutory Body i.e. SEBI.&#8221; It is his case that by declining to disclose the<br \/>\nrequested information, respondents had denied to him justice to which<br \/>\nhe was entitled.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The point to be decided in this appeal is whether the information<br \/>\nrequested by the appellant would qualify to be personal information of<br \/>\na third-party and whether that information was also one of commercial<br \/>\nconfidence of that third-party.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     From the order of the Appellate Authority, it is clear that the<br \/>\nrequested information definitely belongs to individuals, who were<br \/>\nthird-parties in this matter. There is no reason why this information be<br \/>\nprovided to the appellant despite it coming within the scope of Sections<br \/>\n8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Nothing what the appellant had<br \/>\nstated would show that there was any overriding public interest that<br \/>\nwould commend disclosure of the requested information.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    I, therefore, hold that the Appellate Authority had rightly<br \/>\ndeclined to disclose the requested information to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    Appeal fails. Closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         ( A.N. TIWARI )<br \/>\n                                             INFORMATION COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n<p>AT-17072009-06.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &#8230;.. F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/01565 Dated, the 17th July, 2009. Appellant : Shri Kul Bhushan Jain Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India This matter was heard on 02.04.2009 in the presence of both parties. Appellant&#8217;s [&hellip;]<\/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-228359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-04T17:58:07+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=\"7 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-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-04T17:58:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1412,\"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-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-04T17:58:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 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 Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-04T17:58:07+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-04T17:58:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009"},"wordCount":1412,"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-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009","name":"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 17 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-04T17:58:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kul-bhushan-jain-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-17-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Kul Bhushan Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 17 July, 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\/228359","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=228359"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228359\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}