<?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 (7) TMI 621 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261660</link>
    <description>A SEBI circular on monthly or quarterly running settlement of client funds and securities was held binding, because it was issued to promote transparency and discipline in broker-client dealings and could not be diluted by later stock exchange clarifications. The appellant&#039;s initial claim of compliance was contradicted by its later admission that quarterly settlement had not been carried out for a substantial period. The proceedings were found fair, with no breach of natural justice, and the penalty was treated as proportionate and within statutory limits. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:43:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 621 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261660</link>
      <description>A SEBI circular on monthly or quarterly running settlement of client funds and securities was held binding, because it was issued to promote transparency and discipline in broker-client dealings and could not be diluted by later stock exchange clarifications. The appellant&#039;s initial claim of compliance was contradicted by its later admission that quarterly settlement had not been carried out for a substantial period. The proceedings were found fair, with no breach of natural justice, and the penalty was treated as proportionate and within statutory limits. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>