Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court upheld the validity of Regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021, which exempts the delisting of shares pursuant to an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) from SEBI's delisting regulations. The court ruled that the IBC, being a later and overriding legislation, would prevail over the SEBI Act in case of conflict. The delisting under the IBC resolution plan cannot be considered ultra vires. The court rejected the challenge to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan for delisting the shares of Reliance Capital Limited, holding that the petitioner's lack of notice argument was misconceived given the IBC provisions and limited scope of judicial review.
The High Court upheld the validity of Regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2021, which exempts the delisting of shares pursuant to an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) from SEBI's delisting regulations. The court ruled that the IBC, being a later and overriding legislation, would prevail over the SEBI Act in case of conflict. The delisting under the IBC resolution plan cannot be considered ultra vires. The court rejected the challenge to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan for delisting the shares of Reliance Capital Limited, holding that the petitioner's lack of notice argument was misconceived given the IBC provisions and limited scope of judicial review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.