https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339834 The majority view in the case held that the appellants did not violate the ICDR Regulations and Merchant Bankers Regulations by not disclosing the RBI's condition in the RHP, as the condition was not applicable to the investors permitted to participate in the offer. The appeal was allowed by the majority decision, setting aside the impugned order with no order as to costs. The minority view disagreed, stating that the appellants should have included the RBI's condition in the RHP for complete disclosure. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:13:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339834 The majority view in the case held that the appellants did not violate the ICDR Regulations and Merchant Bankers Regulations by not disclosing the RBI's condition in the RHP, as the condition was not applicable to the investors permitted to participate in the offer. The appeal was allowed by the majority decision, setting aside the impugned order with no order as to costs. The minority view disagreed, stating that the appellants should have included the RBI's condition in the RHP for complete disclosure. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339834