https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464687 The AT upheld the WTM's order, finding the acquirer contravened Regulation 3 by acquiring over 25% voting rights without making the mandated open offer and that certain share transfers involved fraudulent pledges. The AT affirmed that Regulation 32 empowers the authority to issue remedial directions (including requiring an open offer) and that the WTM validly exercised discretion in line with the SC's guidance on the scope of "may." The impugned order reversing the illegal transfers was therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 10:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464687 The AT upheld the WTM's order, finding the acquirer contravened Regulation 3 by acquiring over 25% voting rights without making the mandated open offer and that certain share transfers involved fraudulent pledges. The AT affirmed that Regulation 32 empowers the authority to issue remedial directions (including requiring an open offer) and that the WTM validly exercised discretion in line with the SC's guidance on the scope of "may." The impugned order reversing the illegal transfers was therefore sustained. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464687