<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1051 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197327</link>
    <description>Rejection of an exemption request under the ICDR Regulations without recorded reasons was held unsustainable because an adverse order affecting rights must disclose reasons to enable effective appellate challenge. The SAT found that a non-speaking rejection could not stand, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Board for prompt reconsideration through a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 14:42:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1051 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197327</link>
      <description>Rejection of an exemption request under the ICDR Regulations without recorded reasons was held unsustainable because an adverse order affecting rights must disclose reasons to enable effective appellate challenge. The SAT found that a non-speaking rejection could not stand, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Board for prompt reconsideration through a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>