TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Regulation 6 bars individual-registered investment advisers from providing advisory services under a partnership firm name without separate firm registration</h1> SC dismissed the review petitions, holding that Regulation 6's eligibility criteria prohibit an individual-registered investment adviser from rendering ... Eligibility criteria as per Regulation 6 for registration - Investment advisory services - individual registered IA rendering services in the name of a partnership firm without separate firm registration - Registration obtained by Shri Neeraj Kumar in his individual capacity and the advice was being given in the name of the firm which is not permissible in law. - HELD THAT:- Having perused the Review Petitions and the connected papers, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petitions. Review Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Having perused the review petitions and the connected papers, the Court found 'no justifiable reason to entertain the review petitions.' On that basis the Review Petitions are 'accordingly, dismissed.' The order disposes of any pending application(s). The decision reflects the procedural posture: review petitions were considered on their merits against the standard for grant of review and rejected for failure to meet that threshold; no separate remedial relief or stay was granted. The disposition is limited to dismissal of the review petitions and attendant applications, without further elaboration or alteration of the underlying judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
