https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780792 SC dismissed the review petitions, holding that Regulation 6's eligibility criteria prohibit an individual-registered investment adviser from rendering advisory services in the name of a partnership firm without separate firm registration. The Court found the registration was granted in an individual capacity while advice was being provided under a firm name, which is impermissible as a matter of law, and saw no justification to reopen the matter; the review petitions were accordingly dismissed. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 08:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780792 SC dismissed the review petitions, holding that Regulation 6's eligibility criteria prohibit an individual-registered investment adviser from rendering advisory services in the name of a partnership firm without separate firm registration. The Court found the registration was granted in an individual capacity while advice was being provided under a firm name, which is impermissible as a matter of law, and saw no justification to reopen the matter; the review petitions were accordingly dismissed. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780792