https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464615 The AT held the appellants had violated Regulation 11(1) of the SAST Regulations. Given delay in proceedings, the Tribunal found an open offer inappropriate and remitted the matter to the WTM to issue an appropriate direction under Regulation 44 other than an open offer. The WTM's direction was substituted by an order to sell shares in excess of 5% and deposit proceeds into the investor protection fund. The WTM's direction was upheld as not arbitrary or harsh, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 19:04:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464615 The AT held the appellants had violated Regulation 11(1) of the SAST Regulations. Given delay in proceedings, the Tribunal found an open offer inappropriate and remitted the matter to the WTM to issue an appropriate direction under Regulation 44 other than an open offer. The WTM's direction was substituted by an order to sell shares in excess of 5% and deposit proceeds into the investor protection fund. The WTM's direction was upheld as not arbitrary or harsh, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464615