<?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>2014 (5) TMI 785 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247858</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, and the order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) was set aside. The court restored the directions issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in the letter dated 30th November 2012, emphasizing that the voluntary open offer could not be withdrawn merely on the grounds of economic unviability and that SEBI&#039;s delay in issuing comments did not justify the withdrawal of the offer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 785 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247858</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, and the order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) was set aside. The court restored the directions issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in the letter dated 30th November 2012, emphasizing that the voluntary open offer could not be withdrawn merely on the grounds of economic unviability and that SEBI&#039;s delay in issuing comments did not justify the withdrawal of the offer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>