<?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>2023 (12) TMI 295 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446611</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, noting that a previous petition had already been dismissed and that SEBI had revoked the settlement order, making the current petition before the HC moot. Despite arguments that certain prayer clauses needed resolution, the SC declined to entertain the petitions at this stage, allowing parties to seek remedies post-HC judgment. The interpretation of Regulation 29 was left open for future consideration. All pending applications were disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2023 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 295 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446611</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, noting that a previous petition had already been dismissed and that SEBI had revoked the settlement order, making the current petition before the HC moot. Despite arguments that certain prayer clauses needed resolution, the SC declined to entertain the petitions at this stage, allowing parties to seek remedies post-HC judgment. The interpretation of Regulation 29 was left open for future consideration. All pending applications were disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>