<?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 791 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260866</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging a penalty imposed by SEBI on the appellant for failing to make yearly disclosures under regulation 8(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997. The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 10 lac was not unreasonable or excessive, considering the mandatory nature of the disclosure obligation and the prescribed penalty under the SEBI Act, 1992. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the suspension of trading and lack of investor complaints were not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs awarded to either party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:37:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 791 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260866</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging a penalty imposed by SEBI on the appellant for failing to make yearly disclosures under regulation 8(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997. The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 10 lac was not unreasonable or excessive, considering the mandatory nature of the disclosure obligation and the prescribed penalty under the SEBI Act, 1992. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the suspension of trading and lack of investor complaints were not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs awarded to either party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>