https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464554 AT allowed the appeal, set aside SEBI's communication dated April 19, 2023, and held the company's refusal to dematerialize shares or issue duplicate certificates to be patently erroneous and contrary to Regulation 31(2) of the LODR Regulations and the Depositories Act. Section 58 CA was held inapplicable as no transfer was involved, and the company's AOA refusal ground was unreasonable. SEBI has jurisdiction over such complaints and erred in disposing of the matter. The listed company must ensure promoters' shareholding is fully dematerialized. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 20:06:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464554 AT allowed the appeal, set aside SEBI's communication dated April 19, 2023, and held the company's refusal to dematerialize shares or issue duplicate certificates to be patently erroneous and contrary to Regulation 31(2) of the LODR Regulations and the Depositories Act. Section 58 CA was held inapplicable as no transfer was involved, and the company's AOA refusal ground was unreasonable. SEBI has jurisdiction over such complaints and erred in disposing of the matter. The listed company must ensure promoters' shareholding is fully dematerialized. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 03 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464554