<?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>2015 (4) TMI 517 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258635</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the recovery certificate issued by SEBI, emphasizing that the final fee liability statements, issued after considering auditors&#039; certificates, supported the certificate. It found the recovery certificate and notice to NSE to be lawful, as they aligned with the fee liability statements. Despite the appellant&#039;s claims regarding auditors&#039; certificates, the Tribunal noted the finality of the fee liability statements upheld through prior legal challenges. The appellant&#039;s repeated legal actions to avoid payment were deemed an abuse of process, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and imposition of costs on the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 517 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258635</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the recovery certificate issued by SEBI, emphasizing that the final fee liability statements, issued after considering auditors&#039; certificates, supported the certificate. It found the recovery certificate and notice to NSE to be lawful, as they aligned with the fee liability statements. Despite the appellant&#039;s claims regarding auditors&#039; certificates, the Tribunal noted the finality of the fee liability statements upheld through prior legal challenges. The appellant&#039;s repeated legal actions to avoid payment were deemed an abuse of process, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and imposition of costs on the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>