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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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>Company with paid-up capital below Rs.10 crores exempt from corporate governance under Regulation 23 SEBI LODR 2015</h1> <h3>Remsons Industries Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Securities and Exchange Board of India And Remsons Industries Limited Versus BSE Limited, Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> Remsons Industries Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Securities and Exchange Board of India And Remsons Industries Limited Versus ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issue in this judgment concerns the applicability of Regulation 23 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (LODR Regulations) to the appellant company. Specifically, the question is whether the appellant company is exempt from compliance with corporate governance provisions under Regulation 15(2) of the LODR Regulations.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents:The LODR Regulations, particularly Regulation 15(2), stipulate that a listed entity with a paid-up equity share capital not exceeding Rs.10 crores and a net worth not exceeding Rs.25 crores is exempt from certain corporate governance provisions, including Regulation 23. The interpretation of these provisions is crucial to determining the applicability of the regulations to the appellant.Court's interpretation and reasoning:The court examined the language of Regulation 15(2), emphasizing the conjunctive requirement that both the paid-up equity share capital and the net worth must meet the specified thresholds for exemption. The court considered the literal meaning of the word 'and' in the regulation, which necessitates satisfaction of both conditions for the exemption to apply.Key evidence and findings:The appellant's paid-up equity share capital as of March 31, 2021, was Rs.5.71 crores, and its net worth was Rs.31.36 crores. The appellant argued that since the paid-up share capital was below Rs.10 crores, it should qualify for the exemption. However, the net worth exceeded the Rs.25 crores threshold, which was a point of contention.Application of law to facts:The court applied the statutory language of Regulation 15(2) to the facts, concluding that the appellant did not meet both criteria for exemption. The court noted that the regulation's proviso indicated that the exemption would continue until either the equity share capital or the net worth fell below the specified thresholds, reinforcing the conjunctive requirement.Treatment of competing arguments:The appellant's argument relied on the interpretation that the exemption should apply if either condition was met. The respondent countered that both conditions must be satisfied, citing the need for strict compliance with corporate governance provisions due to their impact on the securities market. The court favored the respondent's interpretation, supported by precedents emphasizing the conjunctive nature of 'and' in statutory language.Conclusions:The court concluded that since the appellant's net worth exceeded Rs.25 crores, it did not qualify for the exemption under Regulation 15(2), despite its paid-up equity share capital being below Rs.10 crores.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:'The word 'and' is normally conjunctive and word 'or' is normally disjunctive. The word 'and' is required to be given its literal meaning.'Core principles established:The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory language must be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning, particularly when the language is clear and unambiguous. The conjunctive use of 'and' in legal provisions requires all conditions to be satisfied for applicability or exemption.Final determinations on each issue:1. The corporate governance provisions under Regulation 23 of the LODR Regulations are not applicable to the appellant, as the paid-up equity share capital is less than Rs.10 crores.2. The penalty imposed on the appellant is unsustainable, and the court directed a refund of the penalty amount with interest at 8% per annum within eight weeks.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found