https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268745 Fee continuity under Paragraph I(4) of Schedule III to the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 depended on compliance with the prescribed conversion conditions: an erstwhile partner had to serve as a whole-time director and hold at least 40% of the paid-up equity capital for three years. The Supreme Court held that all erstwhile partners were not required to remain as whole-time directors, and that Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to read the singular expression in the Regulations as plural. It further held that the 12.9.2002 circular, which imposed a stricter requirement, was not merely clarificatory and had no retrospective effect. en-us Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268745 Fee continuity under Paragraph I(4) of Schedule III to the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 depended on compliance with the prescribed conversion conditions: an erstwhile partner had to serve as a whole-time director and hold at least 40% of the paid-up equity capital for three years. The Supreme Court held that all erstwhile partners were not required to remain as whole-time directors, and that Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not apply to read the singular expression in the Regulations as plural. It further held that the 12.9.2002 circular, which imposed a stricter requirement, was not merely clarificatory and had no retrospective effect. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268745