<?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>2021 (5) TMI 1071 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309612</link>
    <description>Cancellation or truncation of previously disclosed work orders was material and price sensitive information requiring immediate disclosure under Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement read with Section 21 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. The non-disclosure deprived investors of information needed for an informed assessment, so the penalties under Section 23A(a) of that Act and Section 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 were sustained. However, Clause 36 breach did not amount to failure to comply with statutory listing conditions for Section 23E purposes, so the penalty imposed under that provision was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:00:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 1071 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309612</link>
      <description>Cancellation or truncation of previously disclosed work orders was material and price sensitive information requiring immediate disclosure under Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement read with Section 21 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. The non-disclosure deprived investors of information needed for an informed assessment, so the penalties under Section 23A(a) of that Act and Section 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 were sustained. However, Clause 36 breach did not amount to failure to comply with statutory listing conditions for Section 23E purposes, so the penalty imposed under that provision was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>