https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257752 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, interpreting that the 30-day time gap requirement in clause 16 of the listing agreement applies between two book closures and two record dates, not between a book closure and a record date. The tribunal emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the Companies Act and ensures timely dividend payments, mitigating potential harm to investor interests. Both stock exchanges were directed to announce the record date as 24th September 2014, later modified to 25th September 2014, to facilitate dividend payments by 29th September 2014. SEBI was permitted to continue proceedings against the appellant regarding the interpretation of clause 16. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257752 The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, interpreting that the 30-day time gap requirement in clause 16 of the listing agreement applies between two book closures and two record dates, not between a book closure and a record date. The tribunal emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the Companies Act and ensures timely dividend payments, mitigating potential harm to investor interests. Both stock exchanges were directed to announce the record date as 24th September 2014, later modified to 25th September 2014, to facilitate dividend payments by 29th September 2014. SEBI was permitted to continue proceedings against the appellant regarding the interpretation of clause 16. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257752