Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Freezing the Demat Accounts of the petitioners - The Calcutta High Court adjudicated on the legality of freezing Demat Accounts of petitioners, directors of a listed company, by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The petitioners argued that the freezing of their accounts violated SEBI Regulations due to lack of individual notices. The CSE justified its actions citing persistent non-compliance by the company. The court found procedural lapses by the CSE in issuing individual notices, as required under SEBI Circular dated January 22, 2020, but recognized the company's non-compliance. The court set aside the freezing notice, directing the CSE to issue fresh compliance notices to the petitioners, and allowed for future freezing actions if non-compliance persists.
Freezing the Demat Accounts of the petitioners - The Calcutta High Court adjudicated on the legality of freezing Demat Accounts of petitioners, directors of a listed company, by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The petitioners argued that the freezing of their accounts violated SEBI Regulations due to lack of individual notices. The CSE justified its actions citing persistent non-compliance by the company. The court found procedural lapses by the CSE in issuing individual notices, as required under SEBI Circular dated January 22, 2020, but recognized the company's non-compliance. The court set aside the freezing notice, directing the CSE to issue fresh compliance notices to the petitioners, and allowed for future freezing actions if non-compliance persists.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
