<?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 (4) TMI 1367 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310568</link>
    <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal held that independent non-executive directors who merely passed a resolution but did not participate in subsequent GDR proceedings could not be penalized for fraudulent activities. A director who resigned on the day of resolution passing was also absolved of liability for subsequent acts. However, the Managing Director, Company, and Whole Time Director were held liable for the fraudulent GDR issue and misappropriation of proceeds. The Managing Director could not escape responsibility by claiming he merely followed Lead Manager instructions, as his position required awareness of the account charge agreement&#039;s consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 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=730875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1367 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310568</link>
      <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal held that independent non-executive directors who merely passed a resolution but did not participate in subsequent GDR proceedings could not be penalized for fraudulent activities. A director who resigned on the day of resolution passing was also absolved of liability for subsequent acts. However, the Managing Director, Company, and Whole Time Director were held liable for the fraudulent GDR issue and misappropriation of proceeds. The Managing Director could not escape responsibility by claiming he merely followed Lead Manager instructions, as his position required awareness of the account charge agreement&#039;s consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>