<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1222 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194191</link>
    <description>The Tribunal deemed the appeal challenging the communication regarding the issuance of Global Depository Receipts and the applicability of the takeover code as premature and not maintainable. The communication was found to be interpretative and not binding, with no final decision affecting shareholders made. The Tribunal questioned the appellant&#039;s motives, dismissing the appeal due to doubts about their bonafides. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that appeals could only be made against orders, not inaction, and as the appellant did not request a direction for the Board to address the representation, this argument was not entertained. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1222 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194191</link>
      <description>The Tribunal deemed the appeal challenging the communication regarding the issuance of Global Depository Receipts and the applicability of the takeover code as premature and not maintainable. The communication was found to be interpretative and not binding, with no final decision affecting shareholders made. The Tribunal questioned the appellant&#039;s motives, dismissing the appeal due to doubts about their bonafides. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that appeals could only be made against orders, not inaction, and as the appellant did not request a direction for the Board to address the representation, this argument was not entertained. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>