<?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 (9) TMI 1519 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310571</link>
    <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai allowed appeals by two non-executive independent directors against SEBI penalty and debarment orders in a fraudulent GDR case. The Tribunal held that being mere signatories to resolutions without involvement in day-to-day affairs or decision-making was insufficient to establish guilt. For the first director, the Tribunal found regulatory inconsistency as the AO had previously cleared him in similar circumstances. For the second director who chaired the audit committee, the Tribunal ruled that questioning GDR proceeds utilization was beyond audit committee purview, especially since loans were promptly repaid and funds were used for intended purposes. However, the Managing Director&#039;s penalty was reduced to Rs. 20 lakh per GDR issue for non-disclosure violations under the Listing Agreement, with debarment upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:08:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1519 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310571</link>
      <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai allowed appeals by two non-executive independent directors against SEBI penalty and debarment orders in a fraudulent GDR case. The Tribunal held that being mere signatories to resolutions without involvement in day-to-day affairs or decision-making was insufficient to establish guilt. For the first director, the Tribunal found regulatory inconsistency as the AO had previously cleared him in similar circumstances. For the second director who chaired the audit committee, the Tribunal ruled that questioning GDR proceeds utilization was beyond audit committee purview, especially since loans were promptly repaid and funds were used for intended purposes. However, the Managing Director&#039;s penalty was reduced to Rs. 20 lakh per GDR issue for non-disclosure violations under the Listing Agreement, with debarment upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>