https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284434 An investor complaining of non-disclosure and fraudulent misrepresentation in a public offer was treated as a person aggrieved where SEBI rejected the complaint without examining the substance of the disclosure allegations. The appellate remedy under Section 15T was therefore held maintainable because the investor was directly prejudiced by the rejection. SEBI's communication was also found unjustified since it did not address whether the alleged suppression of control over the acquirer and prior associations of a director required disclosure under the takeover framework. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted to SEBI for fresh consideration in accordance with law, without any view on the merits. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:00:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284434 An investor complaining of non-disclosure and fraudulent misrepresentation in a public offer was treated as a person aggrieved where SEBI rejected the complaint without examining the substance of the disclosure allegations. The appellate remedy under Section 15T was therefore held maintainable because the investor was directly prejudiced by the rejection. SEBI's communication was also found unjustified since it did not address whether the alleged suppression of control over the acquirer and prior associations of a director required disclosure under the takeover framework. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted to SEBI for fresh consideration in accordance with law, without any view on the merits. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284434