<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (3) TMI 450 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103399</link>
    <description>Full disclosure in issue documents defeated the allegation that a public share issue was misleading merely because the bank had reported losses and priced shares at a premium. The offer material disclosed the losses, risk factors, pending proceedings, market-price uncertainty, and capital restructuring; the losses were explained by prudential accounting norms and provisioning, while operating profits were shown. Regulatory approvals for the issue, premium, restructuring, and listing were also on record, so the challenge for want of approval failed. The Court treated premium fixation, accounting treatment, and related financial matters as lying within specialist regulatory expertise and declined to infer fraud or illegality absent abuse of power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 450 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103399</link>
      <description>Full disclosure in issue documents defeated the allegation that a public share issue was misleading merely because the bank had reported losses and priced shares at a premium. The offer material disclosed the losses, risk factors, pending proceedings, market-price uncertainty, and capital restructuring; the losses were explained by prudential accounting norms and provisioning, while operating profits were shown. Regulatory approvals for the issue, premium, restructuring, and listing were also on record, so the challenge for want of approval failed. The Court treated premium fixation, accounting treatment, and related financial matters as lying within specialist regulatory expertise and declined to infer fraud or illegality absent abuse of power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>