https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456531 The Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ruled in favor of a company that had utilized preferential issue proceeds differently than originally stated to shareholders in an EOGM dated October 1, 2012. The company used funds to purchase shares and extend loans to other entities instead of the approved purposes. However, shareholders subsequently ratified these actions through a Special Resolution on September 29, 2017. The Tribunal held that ratification validates previously unauthorized acts, making the varied utilization legitimate and authorized. The AO's finding that illegal acts cannot be legitimized by subsequent ratification was incorrect. Since shareholder ratification occurred, there was no violation of Clause 43 of the Listing Agreement. The impugned orders were quashed. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:21:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456531 The Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ruled in favor of a company that had utilized preferential issue proceeds differently than originally stated to shareholders in an EOGM dated October 1, 2012. The company used funds to purchase shares and extend loans to other entities instead of the approved purposes. However, shareholders subsequently ratified these actions through a Special Resolution on September 29, 2017. The Tribunal held that ratification validates previously unauthorized acts, making the varied utilization legitimate and authorized. The AO's finding that illegal acts cannot be legitimized by subsequent ratification was incorrect. Since shareholder ratification occurred, there was no violation of Clause 43 of the Listing Agreement. The impugned orders were quashed. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456531