<?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>An issue of non-convertible debentures structured in multiple tranches was treated as a public issue because the aggregate number of subscribers crossed the statutory threshold of fifty or more persons. On that basis, the obligations applicable to public issues, including disclosure, listing and redemption reserve requirements, applied, and tranche-wise structuring could not change the legal character of the offer. SEBI was also stated to have jurisdiction under the statutory framework governing issue and transfer of securities, as clarified by the cited Supreme Court precedent. Reliance on private placement, trusteeship arrangements and RoC treatment did not displace those statutory obligations.</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>An issue of non-convertible debentures structured in multiple tranches was treated as a public issue because the aggregate number of subscribers crossed the statutory threshold of fifty or more persons. On that basis, the obligations applicable to public issues, including disclosure, listing and redemption reserve requirements, applied, and tranche-wise structuring could not change the legal character of the offer. SEBI was also stated to have jurisdiction under the statutory framework governing issue and transfer of securities, as clarified by the cited Supreme Court precedent. Reliance on private placement, trusteeship arrangements and RoC treatment did not displace those statutory obligations.</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>