<?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>1999 (5) TMI 479 - HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104174</link>
    <description>Mandatory compliance with the bankers to an issue regulations, which have the force of law, can attract penalty; however, where liability turns on issue-specific contractual and regulatory documents, adjudication must examine the actual agreements, correspondence and operative records rather than specimen papers. The authority had not recorded specific findings on whether required particulars were contained in each issue&#039;s documents, whether collection centres were duly approved and circulated, or whether the issuer&#039;s agent was properly authorised. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh, issue-wise adjudication on the actual documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:27:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 479 - HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104174</link>
      <description>Mandatory compliance with the bankers to an issue regulations, which have the force of law, can attract penalty; however, where liability turns on issue-specific contractual and regulatory documents, adjudication must examine the actual agreements, correspondence and operative records rather than specimen papers. The authority had not recorded specific findings on whether required particulars were contained in each issue&#039;s documents, whether collection centres were duly approved and circulated, or whether the issuer&#039;s agent was properly authorised. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh, issue-wise adjudication on the actual documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>