<?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>2019 (8) TMI 589 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384400</link>
    <description>A listed company must disclose a material event affecting its financial position promptly and immediately when it occurs; belated disclosure through financial statements does not cure the failure because Clause 36 operates independently of periodic reporting. The text also states that disclosure under the insider-trading regulations is complete only on actual receipt by the stock exchange, so mere dispatch is insufficient where receipt is not proved. On compliance-officer liability, the article notes that responsibility for a conscious management-level non-disclosure under Clause 36 should not be fastened on the officer, while liability may remain for the separate disclosure obligation tied to share dealings and timely exchange receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 13:49:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 589 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384400</link>
      <description>A listed company must disclose a material event affecting its financial position promptly and immediately when it occurs; belated disclosure through financial statements does not cure the failure because Clause 36 operates independently of periodic reporting. The text also states that disclosure under the insider-trading regulations is complete only on actual receipt by the stock exchange, so mere dispatch is insufficient where receipt is not proved. On compliance-officer liability, the article notes that responsibility for a conscious management-level non-disclosure under Clause 36 should not be fastened on the officer, while liability may remain for the separate disclosure obligation tied to share dealings and timely exchange receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>