<?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 (6) TMI 107 - COMPANY LAW BOARD MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260182</link>
    <description>The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate on alleged violations of the Takeover Code, advising the appellant to seek relief from SEBI. The CLB found that SEBI has exclusive jurisdiction over breaches of the Takeover Code and cannot order forfeiture of shares or rectification of the Register of Members without SEBI&#039;s investigation. Additionally, the CLB considered principles of waiver and acquiescence, noting the appellant&#039;s delay in asserting rights as grounds for dismissal. The petition was dismissed, with orders to vacate any interim orders and no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2015 10:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 107 - COMPANY LAW BOARD MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260182</link>
      <description>The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate on alleged violations of the Takeover Code, advising the appellant to seek relief from SEBI. The CLB found that SEBI has exclusive jurisdiction over breaches of the Takeover Code and cannot order forfeiture of shares or rectification of the Register of Members without SEBI&#039;s investigation. Additionally, the CLB considered principles of waiver and acquiescence, noting the appellant&#039;s delay in asserting rights as grounds for dismissal. The petition was dismissed, with orders to vacate any interim orders and no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>