<?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 (10) TMI 957 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197691</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellants, as small shareholders of a public limited company, were not considered &quot;persons aggrieved&quot; under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants did not suffer a legal wrong directly affecting their interests and were deemed to be interfering in regulatory matters within SEBI&#039;s exclusive domain. Despite arguments for a broader interpretation of the term &quot;person aggrieved,&quot; citing previous judgments, the Tribunal found that the impugned order did not prejudicially affect the appellants&#039; interests, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:57:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (10) TMI 957 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197691</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellants, as small shareholders of a public limited company, were not considered &quot;persons aggrieved&quot; under Section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants did not suffer a legal wrong directly affecting their interests and were deemed to be interfering in regulatory matters within SEBI&#039;s exclusive domain. Despite arguments for a broader interpretation of the term &quot;person aggrieved,&quot; citing previous judgments, the Tribunal found that the impugned order did not prejudicially affect the appellants&#039; interests, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>