<?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>2009 (11) TMI 502 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113499</link>
    <description>A merchant banker&#039;s role in the securities market does not extend to arranging a single-bank term loan, because a term loan is not a securities transaction and syndication of rupee term loans contemplates participation by multiple banks. The directions to the banking regulator and the investigative agency were therefore upheld, as the proposed loan arranging activity fell outside the legitimate merchant banker framework and warranted preliminary inquiry into suspected misconduct. The review challenge based on non-impleadment and denial of hearing also failed, because the earlier order was only for a preliminary inquiry and prior hearing was not mandatory at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 502 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113499</link>
      <description>A merchant banker&#039;s role in the securities market does not extend to arranging a single-bank term loan, because a term loan is not a securities transaction and syndication of rupee term loans contemplates participation by multiple banks. The directions to the banking regulator and the investigative agency were therefore upheld, as the proposed loan arranging activity fell outside the legitimate merchant banker framework and warranted preliminary inquiry into suspected misconduct. The review challenge based on non-impleadment and denial of hearing also failed, because the earlier order was only for a preliminary inquiry and prior hearing was not mandatory at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>