{"id":48311,"date":"2016-05-20T14:41:01","date_gmt":"2016-05-20T09:11:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=48311"},"modified":"2018-05-23T16:35:49","modified_gmt":"2018-05-23T11:05:49","slug":"s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa:\u00a0<\/strong>Deciding an appeal wherein the issue concerned the proper interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 and, in particular, whether it confers an unqualified right of access to the securities register of a company contemplated in the section., the Court by a majority observed that Section 26(2) of the Act provides an unqualified right of access to securities registers and if Parliament is of the view that the right should be qualified in some way, because of concerns relating to abuse of the right of access, it can legislate accordingly but it has chosen not to do so.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the instant case the appeal arose from the attempts of respondents to exercise their statutory right in terms of Section 26 of the Act to access the securities registers of the appellants i.e., the Companies. Respondent 1 was a financial journalist who specialises in the investigation of illegal investment schemes while respondent 2 was a publisher of business, financial and investment news. As part of its on-going investigation into, and coverage of a Group of Companies\u2019 (appellants) controversial property syndication investment scheme, respondent 2 commissioned respondent 1 to investigate the shareholding structures of the appellant Companies, which were purportedly linked (directly or indirectly) to the scheme, and to write articles on his findings for publication by respondent 2.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While interpreting Section 26(2) of the Act, the Court noted that approach of Parliament, regarding interaction between Section 26(2) and the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (PAIA) was eminently sensible as PAIA is a general statute. It regulates access to innumerable types of information held by a wide range of bodies, with various different types of interests at stake. Parliament, therefore, had to lay down general rules to balance the competing interests at stake by means of threshold requirements, grounds of refusal and public interest overrides. By contrast, Section 26(2) confers a specific right in respect of one type of information only which is the securities registers and directors\u2019 registers. The Court further reasoned that the Parliament justifiably took the view that, in respect of this narrow category of information, it was unnecessary to build in the PAIA balances and counter balances with all the complexity and delay that might entail. Instead, it conferred an unqualified right that is capable of prompt vindication.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">With regard to the contention of the appellants that the right of access in Section 26(2) must be qualified by and subject to the provisions of PAIA, and that the person requesting the information must demonstrate that the information is required for the purpose of exercising or protecting a right, the Court held that the appellants reliance on PAIA is unsustainable as it certainly did not render the documents sought in the Rule 35(14) interlocutory application relevant to the main application. [Nova Property Group Holdings v. Cobbett, [2016] ZASCA 63, decided on 12 May 2016]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa:\u00a0Deciding an appeal wherein the issue concerned the proper interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":39761,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register | 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\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa:\u00a0Deciding an appeal wherein the issue concerned the proper interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-05-20T09:11:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-23T11:05:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\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\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/\",\"name\":\"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-05-20T09:11:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T11:05:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register | 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\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register","og_description":"Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa:\u00a0Deciding an appeal wherein the issue concerned the proper interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-05-20T09:11:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-23T11:05:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/","name":"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg","datePublished":"2016-05-20T09:11:01+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T11:05:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/20\/s-262-of-the-companies-act-71-of-2008-provides-an-unqualified-right-of-access-to-a-companys-securities-register\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Section 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides an unqualified right of access to a company\u2019s securities register"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Supreme-Court-of-Appeals.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252567,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/12\/sebi-4\/","url_meta":{"origin":48311,"position":0},"title":"SEBI | To bring the proceedings initiated to a logical conclusion-Certificate of registration fails to survive","author":"Editor","date":"August 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI): G Mahalingam, Whole Time Member while exercising the powers conferred under Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation 27 of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 cancelled the certificate of registration granted Sai Soft Securities Private Limited.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":292878,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/23\/delhi-high-court-dismisses-pil-filed-seeking-proper-mechanism-for-delisting-of-securities-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":48311,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court dismisses PIL espousing cause of investors being duped by promoters, alleging arbitrary delisting of securities","author":"Arunima","date":"May 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that on perusal of all the necessary rules and regulations, the statutory provisions do provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the interest of investors and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the interest of investors is not at all protected.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237377,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/13\/sebi-liability-under-s-732-of-companies-act-1956-lies-on-the-company-along-with-the-director-who-is-officer-in-default-as-per-s-5-of-companies-act-1956\/","url_meta":{"origin":48311,"position":2},"title":"SEBI | Liability under S. 73(2) of Companies Act, 1956, lies on the company along with the director who is \u2018officer in default\u2019 as per S. 5 of Companies Act, 1956","author":"Editor","date":"October 13, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Anant Barua (Whole-time member) passed the order in exercise of his powers under Sections 11 and 11B read with Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The facts in the instant case are such that the company PDS\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":241947,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/08\/ori-hc-can-an-arbitration-clause-be-invoked-when-there-is-an-arbitration-clause-in-the-agreement-but-not-registered-or-executed-hc-decides\/","url_meta":{"origin":48311,"position":3},"title":"Ori HC | Can an arbitration clause be invoked when there is an arbitration clause in the agreement but not registered or executed? HC decides","author":"Editor","date":"January 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: K. R. Mohapatra J., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. \u00a0The facts of the case are such that a \u2018Request for Proposal\u2019 (RFP) by the Respondent - Berhampur Development Authority (BDA) for development of Integrated Commercial \u2013 cum - Residential Complex in Berhampur, the Appellant had\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":222303,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/19\/sat-money-collected-from-investors-through-ncds-to-be-returned-with-interest-in-being-found-accountable-under-s-5g-of-companies-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":48311,"position":4},"title":"SAT | Money collected from investors through NCDs to be returned with interest in being found accountable under S. 5(g) of Companies Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer), Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), and Dr C.K.G. Nair (Member), dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the order passed by the Whole Time Member (\u2018WTM\u2019) of SEBI. WTM had passed an order against the appellants under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":[]},{"id":218047,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/13\/sat-director-can-only-be-prosecuted-on-sufficient-evidence-of-his-active-role-or-where-statutory-regime-attracts-vicarious-liability\/","url_meta":{"origin":48311,"position":5},"title":"SAT | Director can only be prosecuted on sufficient evidence of his active role or where statutory regime attracts vicarious liability","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT):\u00a0Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer), Dr C.K.G. Nair (Member), and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), quashed an order by the WTM who held the appellant vicariously liable for an act of the Company she worked in. SEBI received a complaint against Silicon Projects India Limited\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/48311","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48311\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}