Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal lifts ban on pharma company, dismisses fraud allegations, and emphasizes prompt proceedings.</h1> <h3>Morepen Laboratories Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> Morepen Laboratories Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India - TMI Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing of the appeal.2. Compliance with legal provisions for GDR issuance.3. Alleged fraudulent issuance of GDRs.4. Misleading disclosures to stock exchanges.5. Alleged diversion of funds.6. Violation of PFUTP Regulations.7. Reasonableness of the delay in issuing the show cause notice.Analysis:1. Delay in Filing of the Appeal:The delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the tribunal, allowing the Misc. Application No. 66 of 2020 and disposing of the Misc. Application No. 12 of 2021 for urgent hearing.2. Compliance with Legal Provisions for GDR Issuance:The appellant, a pharmaceutical company, followed the necessary steps and obtained approvals from relevant authorities for the issuance of Global Depository Receipts (GDRs). The entire process was in compliance with the applicable legal provisions at the relevant time, and the appellant promptly informed all concerned stock exchanges and authorities. The GDRs were listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange, and the underlying equity shares were listed on Indian stock exchanges.3. Alleged Fraudulent Issuance of GDRs:SEBI issued a show cause notice after 14 years, alleging that the appellant issued GDRs fraudulently through a credit agreement and account charges agreement, which were not disclosed to the stock exchanges. However, the tribunal found that the procedure for GDR issuance was followed in accordance with the law, and no manipulation or investor grievances were reported.4. Misleading Disclosures to Stock Exchanges:The tribunal found that the appellant did not disclose the account charge agreement to the stock exchange and made misleading statements about the successful subscription of the GDR issue. However, it was noted that there was no specific requirement to disclose the account charge agreement under the listing agreement, and the statement about the GDR subscription was not misleading as the issue was indeed subscribed by two entities.5. Alleged Diversion of Funds:The charge of fund diversion alleged that out of US$ 15 million raised, only US$ 7.85 million was received in India, and US$ 7.13 million was diverted to unknown entities. The appellant provided evidence that the balance amount was used for payments to banks/loans, which was reflected in the annual reports. The tribunal found no fault in the appellant's submissions and evidence, and the charge of fund diversion was not upheld.6. Violation of PFUTP Regulations:The WTM concluded that no fraud was committed in the issuance of the GDR, and therefore, the provisions of Regulation 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations could not be invoked. However, the WTM found a violation of Regulation 5 of the PFUTP Regulations, 1995, for making a misleading statement. The tribunal disagreed, stating that the finding was based on surmises and conjectures, and no misleading statement was made by the appellant.7. Reasonableness of the Delay in Issuing the Show Cause Notice:The tribunal highlighted the inordinate delay of 14 years in issuing the show cause notice and subsequent supplementary notices. It emphasized that proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable period, and the delay was unjustified. The tribunal cited various decisions supporting the view that such delays are unreasonable and cannot be condoned without satisfactory explanations.Conclusion:The tribunal quashed the order debarring the appellant from accessing the securities market for one year, citing the inordinate delay in initiating proceedings, lack of evidence for fund diversion, and absence of any misleading statements or violations in the GDR issuance process. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found