{"id":231500,"date":"2020-06-29T13:02:17","date_gmt":"2020-06-29T07:32:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=231500"},"modified":"2020-07-03T21:57:08","modified_gmt":"2020-07-03T16:27:08","slug":"inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/","title":{"rendered":"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., held that neither the finding of judicial adventurism nor imposing costs of Rs 5 lacs is warranted against INOX Leisure Limited.<\/p>\n

Issue<\/span><\/h3>\n

The present appeal was filed to challenge the final Judgment and Order passed on 18th May, 2020 wherein the appellant-plaintiff’s suit was dismissed at the pre-trial stage.<\/p>\n

Senior Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Amit Sibal submitted that the impugned order had erroneously imposed the cost of Rs 5 Lakhs upon the appellant-plaintiff, even when, concept of tortious inducement\/ interference of binding agreements is known to constitute a cause of action to file a suit for injunction.<\/p>\n

Further he contended that the Single judge had erroneously held that appellant-plaintiff indulged in ‘judicial adventurism’ inasmuch as the said expression is used in respect of judicial overreach by a judicial authority and same cannot be attributed to a litigant.<\/p>\n

He lastly submitted that a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Modicare Ltd.<\/em>, FAO (OS) No. 135\/2019 decided on 31st January, 2020 — held that an action for tortiuous interference is a matter of evidence.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that appellant-plaintiff by filing the present suit cannot seek waiver of cost as well as expunction of the ‘judicial adventurism’ remark.<\/p>\n

Court’s Opinion<\/span><\/h3>\n

High Court stated that no plea of tortiuous inducement\/ interference of binding agreement is made out in the present suit, yet the concept was well-known in law to constitute a cause of action to file a suit for damages\/injunction.<\/p>\n

Thus, agreeing with the decision in Modicare Ltd. v. Gautam Bali<\/em>, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10511<\/a> Court\u00a0 held that Single Judge did not dismiss the present suit on the ground of suppression of material facts or on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff had filed parallel or multiple proceedings on the same cause of action.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

“..neither the finding of \u2018judicial adventurism\u2019 nor the imposition of costs is warranted in the present case.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
\n

Hence, the present appeal and application was disposed in view of the aforesaid modification. [INOX Leisure Ltd. v. PVR Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 673<\/a>,<\/b> decided on 24-06-2020]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., held that neither the finding of judicial adventurism nor imposing costs <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[42216,12171,2943,42218,42217,36386,42215],"class_list":["post-231500","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-binding-agreements","tag-cause-of-action","tag-injunction","tag-inox-v-pvr","tag-judicial-adventurism","tag-judicial-overreach","tag-tortious-inducement"],"yoast_head":"\nINOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted | SCC Times<\/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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., held that neither the finding of judicial adventurism nor imposing costs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-06-29T07:32:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-07-03T16:27:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/\",\"name\":\"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-06-29T07:32:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-07-03T16:27:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted | SCC Times","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., held that neither the finding of judicial adventurism nor imposing costs","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-06-29T07:32:17+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-07-03T16:27:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/","name":"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-06-29T07:32:17+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-03T16:27:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/29\/inox-v-pvr-del-hc-no-plea-of-tortious-inducement-made-out-finding-of-judicial-adventurism-and-imposition-of-five-lakhs-against-inox-not-warranted\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"INOX v. PVR | Del HC | No plea of tortious inducement made out; Finding of judicial adventurism and imposition of five lakhs against INOX, not warranted"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264667,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/29\/khaitan-co-advised-inox-leisure-ltd-in-amalgamation-with-pvr\/","url_meta":{"origin":231500,"position":0},"title":"Khaitan & Co. advised Inox Leisure Ltd in amalgamation with PVR","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Khaitan & Co acted as legal counsel to Inox Leisure for the overall transaction of amalgamation with PVR. \u00a0 NO HEADINGS DETAILS 1. Sector Entertainment \/ Media 2. Announcement Date 27 March 2021 3. Completion Date NA 4. Name of Client Inox Leisure Ltd \u00a0 5. Acquirer Details INOX Leisure\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law Firms News"","block_context":{"text":"Law Firms News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/law-firms-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-115.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-115.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-115.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-115.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-115.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275191,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/07\/threatening-judges-with-contempt-pleas-is-unacceptable-madhya-pradesh-high-court-warned-litigants-to-desist-from-such-adventurism\/","url_meta":{"origin":231500,"position":1},"title":"Threatening Judges with Contempt Pleas is unacceptable; Madhya Pradesh High Court warned litigants to desist from such adventurism","author":"Editor","date":"October 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Every order that is passed by a superior court, is liable to be followed by the lower court. Even assuming the case of the petitioners is to be accepted of certain misapplication of the law, that does not amount to contempt.\"","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madhya Pradesh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-250.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-250.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-250.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-250.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-250.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375397,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/11\/pvr-inox-zea-maize-stake-sale-marico-4700bc\/","url_meta":{"origin":231500,"position":2},"title":"Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advises PVR INOX Limited on sale of its entire stake in Zea Maize Private Limited to Marico Limited","author":"Editor","date":"February 11, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. advised PVR INOX Limited on the sale of its entire stake in Zea Maize Private Limited, owner of \u20184700BC\u2019, to Marico Limited.","rel":"","context":"In "Law Firms News"","block_context":{"text":"Law Firms News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/law-firms-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"PVR INOX Zea Maize Stake Sale","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/PVR-INOX-Zea-Maize-Stake-Sale.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/PVR-INOX-Zea-Maize-Stake-Sale.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/PVR-INOX-Zea-Maize-Stake-Sale.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/PVR-INOX-Zea-Maize-Stake-Sale.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":93661,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/29\/directions-to-judicial-officers-for-effective-enforcement-of-pocso\/","url_meta":{"origin":231500,"position":3},"title":"Directions to Judicial Officers for effective enforcement of POCSO","author":"Saba","date":"December 29, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: While hearing an appeal against conviction, the Division Bench of Gita Mittal, R.K.\u00a0Guba, JJ. , issued detailed directions on framing of charges, compensation to victims, and exercise of\u00a0jurisdiction by Judicial Officers in relation to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,\u00a02012.\u00a0In the instant case, the appellant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":288106,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":231500,"position":4},"title":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court quashed the original complaint and said that respondent miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove deficiency in service on part of the bank.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Consumer Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":263328,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/can-sebi-proceed-against-a-chartered-accountant-for-lack-of-his-due-diligence\/","url_meta":{"origin":231500,"position":5},"title":"Can SEBI proceed against a Chartered Accountant for lack of his due diligence? SAT analyses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member) while addressing a matter whether a Chartered Accountant could be held guilty by SEBI for lack of due diligence, held that, Lack of due diligence can only lead to professional negligence which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231500","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231500"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231500\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231500"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231500"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231500"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}