<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1500 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288060</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order by SEBI finding the appellant company and its directors in violation of the Companies Act, 1956 and SEBI regulations related to the issuance of Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs). The order required the company to refund the money collected from NCDs and imposed a 4-year restraint from dealing in the securities market post-refund. The appellant&#039;s argument that the NCD issue was a private placement outside SEBI&#039;s jurisdiction was rejected, emphasizing that issuing to &quot;50 persons or more&quot; constitutes a public issue, necessitating compliance with relevant regulations. The judgment affirmed SEBI&#039;s jurisdiction over public issues and the importance of regulatory compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2020 10:25:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1500 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288060</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order by SEBI finding the appellant company and its directors in violation of the Companies Act, 1956 and SEBI regulations related to the issuance of Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs). The order required the company to refund the money collected from NCDs and imposed a 4-year restraint from dealing in the securities market post-refund. The appellant&#039;s argument that the NCD issue was a private placement outside SEBI&#039;s jurisdiction was rejected, emphasizing that issuing to &quot;50 persons or more&quot; constitutes a public issue, necessitating compliance with relevant regulations. The judgment affirmed SEBI&#039;s jurisdiction over public issues and the importance of regulatory compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>