<?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>2018 (12) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371330</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court upheld the SEBI Special Court&#039;s decision and dismissed the petition seeking to quash the rejection of the compounding application under Section 24A of the SEBI Act. The Court supported SEBI&#039;s discretion in refusing compounding, highlighting the regulator&#039;s role in safeguarding investor interests and ensuring regulatory compliance. Emphasizing SEBI&#039;s broader public interest mandate, the Court concluded that compelling SEBI to compound the offence would undermine its regulatory authority. The petitioners&#039; history of non-compliance further justified SEBI&#039;s decision, leading to the dismissal of the petition for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2019 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371330</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court upheld the SEBI Special Court&#039;s decision and dismissed the petition seeking to quash the rejection of the compounding application under Section 24A of the SEBI Act. The Court supported SEBI&#039;s discretion in refusing compounding, highlighting the regulator&#039;s role in safeguarding investor interests and ensuring regulatory compliance. Emphasizing SEBI&#039;s broader public interest mandate, the Court concluded that compelling SEBI to compound the offence would undermine its regulatory authority. The petitioners&#039; history of non-compliance further justified SEBI&#039;s decision, leading to the dismissal of the petition for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>