<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1613 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311994</link>
    <description>In the absence of any prior restraining order, SEBI retained the power to consider and adjudicate the settlement applications on their own merits in accordance with law. The Court did not decide whether the applications were admissible under the settlement framework and left that to SEBI&#039;s determination. The clarification was granted, and the settlement applications were left for decision without prejudice to the parties&#039; rights and contentions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:53:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1613 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311994</link>
      <description>In the absence of any prior restraining order, SEBI retained the power to consider and adjudicate the settlement applications on their own merits in accordance with law. The Court did not decide whether the applications were admissible under the settlement framework and left that to SEBI&#039;s determination. The clarification was granted, and the settlement applications were left for decision without prejudice to the parties&#039; rights and contentions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>