<?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>2016 (5) TMI 1610 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311004</link>
    <description>SEBI stated that the appellants&#039; representations would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within seven weeks. In light of that statement, the appellants did not press the two appeals, and the matter was disposed of without costs. The operative effect is that the dispute was resolved on the basis of SEBI&#039;s assurance of reconsideration of the representations, rather than on any adjudication of the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2023 08:46:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1610 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311004</link>
      <description>SEBI stated that the appellants&#039; representations would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed within seven weeks. In light of that statement, the appellants did not press the two appeals, and the matter was disposed of without costs. The operative effect is that the dispute was resolved on the basis of SEBI&#039;s assurance of reconsideration of the representations, rather than on any adjudication of the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>