{"id":32666,"date":"2000-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"},"modified":"2018-02-26T19:42:28","modified_gmt":"2018-02-26T14:12:28","slug":"suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Securities Appellate Tribunal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>1. Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Respondent herein, had<br \/>\nissued a Press Release -PR-109\/2000 on 16-5-2000 on the subject &#8220;CIS<br \/>\nentities who have to compulsorily wind up their schemes and make<br \/>\npayment to the investors latest by May 28,2000&#8221;. The text of the said Press<br \/>\nRelease is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;On notification of the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations,<br \/>\n1999, on October 15,1999, all existing Collective Investment Schemes,<br \/>\nsubject to the provisions of Chapter IX of these Regulations, were<br \/>\nrequired to make an application to SEBI for grant of certificate of registration.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under provisions of the Regulations, an existing Collective Investment<br \/>\nScheme which has failed to make an application or is not desirous of<br \/>\nobtaining registration has to compulsorily wind up the scheme(s) and<br \/>\nmake payment to the investors.\n<\/p>\n<p>Upto March, 31,2000 SEBI has received applications for grant of certificate<br \/>\nof registration from 35 existing entities. Besides, 2 entities who had earlier<br \/>\nnot filed information with SEBI, have applied for registration. Therefor,<br \/>\nthe remaining existing entities, who had earlier filed information with<br \/>\nSEBI have to compulsorily wind up their schemes and make payment to<br \/>\nthe investors latest by May 28,2000 failing which they shall face legal and<br \/>\nadministrative action. The names of 605 entities who have to compulsorily<br \/>\nwind up their schemes and make payment to the investors latest by May<br \/>\n28,2000 are available on SEBI web site viz.wwee.sebi.gov.in. Names of<br \/>\nsuch entities are also being published in new papers separately.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Among the names of 605 entities who had to compulsorily wind up their<br \/>\nscheme as per the Press Release, the name of the appellant also appeared.<br \/>\nThe present appeal from the appellant company is against the said Press<br \/>\nRelease. One of the reliefs sought in the appeal is to set aside the impugned<br \/>\nPress Release and its Annexure pertaining to the appellant company.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The appellant company was incorporated in the year 1984 as a private<br \/>\nlimited company and subsequently converted into a public limited com-<br \/>\npany in 1989. The appellant company is mainly involved in Resort and<br \/>\nTourism activities. It is also involved in plantation activities. it had floated<br \/>\nan Earth Bond Scheme (EBS), which is a Collective Investment Scheme<br \/>\n(CIS), in October, 1994. The EBS promises investors around 24 per cent<br \/>\nIRR. AS per the information furnished by the appellant the fund raised<br \/>\nfrom the said Collective Investment Scheme as on 31.12.1999 was to the extent of Rs. 2276.73 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. According to Section 12(B) of the Securities and Exchange Board of<br \/>\nIndia Act, 1992 (the Act), no person shall carry on any Collective Invest-<br \/>\nment Scheme unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the<br \/>\nSecurities and Exchange Board of india, in accordance with the regula-<br \/>\ntions made thereunder. The respondent notified Securities and Exchange<br \/>\nBoard of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (the<br \/>\nRegulations) with effect from 15-10-1999. In terms of regulation 5(1), any<br \/>\nperson who immediately prior to the commencement of the regulations<br \/>\nwas operating a scheme, subject to the provisions of Chapter IX of the<br \/>\nregulations, is required to make an application to the Board for the grant<br \/>\nof a certificate within a period of two months from such date. However,<br \/>\nthe said Chapter IX provides an exit route to those CIS in case they do not<br \/>\nwant to continue with their business under the regime. AS per regulation<br \/>\n73(1) an existing CIS which (a) has failed to make an application for<br \/>\nregistration to the Board; or (b) has not been granted provisional registra-<br \/>\ntion by the Board; or (c) having obtained provisional registration fails to<br \/>\ncomply with the conditions stipulated in regulation 71, is required to wind<br \/>\nup the scheme and make repayment to the investors in the manner and<br \/>\nwithin he time frame specified in the said regulation 73. In terms of<br \/>\nregulation 74 an existing CIS which is not desirous of obtaining provisional<br \/>\nregistration from the Board is allowed to formulate a scheme of repay-<br \/>\nment and make such repayment to the existing investors in the manner<br \/>\nspecified in regulation 73.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Shri Burzin Somandy, the learned Counsel for the appellant company<br \/>\nsubmitted that it was decided by the management not to go ahead with the<br \/>\nCIS but to formulate a scheme for repayment under regulation 73.<br \/>\nAccordingly they wrote to the respondent on 28-11-2000 seeking certain<br \/>\nclarifications as also their view on the information memorandum sub-<br \/>\nmitted therewith. On 10-2-2000, the appellant company wrote again,<br \/>\nreferring to their earlier letter dated 28-1-2000 requesting the Respondent<br \/>\nto expedite their response stating that it was waiting of their approval of<br \/>\nthe information memorandum for sending to the investors. According to<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel since there was no response, again on 18-2-2000<br \/>\nanother letter was sent to the Respondent inter alia stating therein the<br \/>\npractical difficulties involved in adhering to the specified rigid time frame.<br \/>\nThis letter also remained unanswered. In the meantime the Respondent<br \/>\nissued the impugned Press Release on 16-5-2000. The learned Counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that thereafter again on 25-5-2000, the appellant company<br \/>\nwrote another letter explaining the practical difficulties involved in<br \/>\ncomplying with the requirements within a short time frame and requested<br \/>\nthe authorities to give them an opportunity to explain in detail the<br \/>\nproblem. But the respondent did not respond to this request also. Accord-<br \/>\ning to the learned Counsel the appellant company had already circulated<br \/>\nthe information memorandum to the investors seeking their option. The<br \/>\nappellant had sought advise mainly on the following points:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) if they have to effect any repayments to investors in a substantial<br \/>\nmanner then winding up of the scheme and disposing off the<br \/>\nmovable and immovable assets of the schemes would be necessi-<br \/>\ntated;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) amount payable to each investor can be determined only on realisation<br \/>\nof sale proceeds of the said assets, most of which are still under<br \/>\ndevelopment;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) in the said circumstances the appellant company may not be able to<br \/>\npay the investors within the time prescribed under regulation 73;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) the appellant company had ensured returns and issued post dated<br \/>\ncheques to investors on the basis of a going concern. If the appellant<br \/>\ncompany is required to stop the scheme mid-way the appellant<br \/>\ncompany will not be in a position to fulfil its commitments made to<br \/>\nthe investors;\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)as the CIS is put to wind up, it is presumed that all the agreements,<br \/>\nundertaking, returns assured and post dated cheques will become<br \/>\nnull and void and the appellant would not take responsibility for<br \/>\nthese in the future and SEBI shall allow immunity to the company<br \/>\nfrom any future action of the investors.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. According to the learned Counsel, the points on which the appellant<br \/>\nsought clarification from the respondent are of considerable importance<br \/>\nand have bearing on the interests of the investors. Since CIS Regulations<br \/>\nbeing new and the issues involved being very complex the appellant did<br \/>\nnot want to take any chance and that is why they approached the<br \/>\nRegulator seeking advice.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. The learned Counsel submitted that the impugned Press Release in<br \/>\neffect is an order, that the respondent has threatened to take legal and<br \/>\nadministrative action against the companies mentioned therein, including<br \/>\nthe appellant. According to him the appellant&#8217;s name should not have been<br \/>\nincluded in the list as the appellant had already reported the course of<br \/>\naction pursued by them under the regulation. He is apprehensive of<br \/>\npunitive action following the Press Release, even without getting any<br \/>\nchance to putforth the appellant&#8217;s point of view.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The respondent has filed a very cryptic reply raising preliminary<br \/>\nobjection as regards admission and maintainability of the appeal on the<br \/>\nground that they had not passed any order with specific reference to the<br \/>\nappellant which can be appealed against in terms of Section 15T of the Act.<br \/>\nThe respondent has not replied to any points raised in the appeal including<br \/>\nthe fate of the appellant&#8217;s letters seeking guidance on complex issues<br \/>\narising out of the implementation of the regulations, having bearing on the<br \/>\ninvestors interest. In this connection it is made clear the reply<br \/>\nenvisaged under Rule 14 of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (Procedure)<br \/>\nRules, 2000 is a reply to the appeal as whole and not a part reply. The<br \/>\nrespondent is at liberty to raise preliminary objections in the reply, but the<br \/>\nreply should also deal with other points raised in the appeal, so that in case<br \/>\nthe preliminary objections fail, without any loss of time the appeal itself<br \/>\ncan be considered and disposed off in one go. The outcome of preliminary<br \/>\nobjections should not be taken for granted. Time factor is important in<br \/>\nview of the legislative will be expressed in Section 15T(6) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Mr. S.V. Krishnamohan, learned Representative appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent reiterated the preliminary objections stated in the written<br \/>\nreply that there was no appealable order enabling the appellant to file the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. The crucial question to be considered, to begin with, is the maintain-<br \/>\nability of the appeal itself. According to Section 15T of the Act any person<br \/>\naggrieved by an order of the Board made on the after the commence-<br \/>\nment of the Securities Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1999, under the<br \/>\nAct or the rules or regulations made thereunder, or by an order made by an adjudicating officer under the Act, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. On a perusal of the said Section 15T it could be seen that an appeal lies<br \/>\nonly against an order of the Board (SEBI) or the adjudicating officer.<br \/>\nWhat is an order? There is no definition of this expression in the Act. So<br \/>\nit has to be understood in its generally accepted sense in the context in<br \/>\nwhich it is used. As per the scheme of the Act it is clear that an order<br \/>\nthereunder covers commands or directions that some thing shall be done,<br \/>\nshall not be done, discontinued or suffered. In any case a simple expres-<br \/>\nsion of opinion, or a piece of advise or guidance, cannot be considered as<br \/>\nan order for the purpose of Section 15T.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. In this context it is relevant to examine the impugned Press Release to<br \/>\nascertain as to whether it has any of the attributes of an order. Full text<br \/>\nof the impugned Press Release has been reproduced in the beginning of<br \/>\nthis order. On a perusal of the same it is seen that the first two paragraphs<br \/>\nexplain certain requirement of the regulations. In the first part of the last<br \/>\npara, statistical information relating to the number of application re-<br \/>\nceived for grant of registration from the entities has been stated. There<br \/>\nafter again the statutory provision applicable to the remaining existing<br \/>\nentities has been stated reiterating the consequences which would visit<br \/>\nthem. The release also states that the names of those 605 entities who have<br \/>\nto compulsorily wind up their schemes and make payments to t he<br \/>\ninvestors, are available at SEBI web site and that the names of such entities will be published in news paper also separately. Thus, the Press<br \/>\nRelease contains the factual information and the legal consequences of<br \/>\nnon-compliance of the provisions of the Regulations. I do not find any<br \/>\ntrace of any command or direction enforceable against the appellant<br \/>\ncompany emerging out of the impugned Press Release. There is every<br \/>\nreason to believe that if at all any punitive action is contemplated in the<br \/>\nevent of the companies referred to therein, failing to comply with the<br \/>\nstatutory requirements, it will be taken only after following the requisite<br \/>\nprocedure, and not merely on the basis of the impugned Press Release.<br \/>\nThe appellant&#8217;s apprehension at present appears to be baseless.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. For the reasons stated above, I agree with the respondent&#8217;s version that the impugned Press Release is not an order enabling the appellant to<br \/>\nprefer an appeal under Section 15T of the Act. It is nothing but a piece of<br \/>\ninformation published for the benefit of the companies referred to<br \/>\ntherein including the appellant, explaining the requirements of the regu-<br \/>\nlations and the would be consequences in the event of default. Since the<br \/>\nappellant has sought certain clarifications to avoid complication in the<br \/>\nprocess of acting under the regulations the respondent may consider<br \/>\nproviding the same early so as to enable the appellant to properly comply<br \/>\nwith statutory requirements in the interests of the investors.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. The appeal cannot sustain for the reasons stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Securities Appellate Tribunal Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000 ORDER 1. Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Respondent herein, had issued a Press Release -PR-109\/2000 on 16-5-2000 on the subject &#8220;CIS entities who have to compulsorily wind up their schemes and make payment to the investors [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - 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\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-26T14:12:28+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T14:12:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2071,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\",\"name\":\"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-26T14:12:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - 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\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-26T14:12:28+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T14:12:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"},"wordCount":2071,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000","name":"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 8 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-26T14:12:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suman-motels-ltd-vs-securities-and-exchange-board-of-on-8-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suman Motels Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of &#8230; on 8 September, 2000"}]},{"@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\/32666","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=32666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}