<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 691 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781223</link>
    <description>Exemption from the open offer obligation under Regulation 10(1)(a) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 was unavailable because the acquirer did not satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements of prior stock exchange intimation, report filing and timely submission to the Board. The claimed connection with the promoter structure did not cure those compliance failures, so the exemption was ? Need English. The exemption was denied. On penalty, the tribunal accepted mitigating circumstances arising from the upstream shareholding structure and treated the default as procedural, warranting reduction of the Section 15H(ii) penalty from the higher amount to the minimum sufficient punishment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 691 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781223</link>
      <description>Exemption from the open offer obligation under Regulation 10(1)(a) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 was unavailable because the acquirer did not satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements of prior stock exchange intimation, report filing and timely submission to the Board. The claimed connection with the promoter structure did not cure those compliance failures, so the exemption was ? Need English. The exemption was denied. On penalty, the tribunal accepted mitigating circumstances arising from the upstream shareholding structure and treated the default as procedural, warranting reduction of the Section 15H(ii) penalty from the higher amount to the minimum sufficient punishment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>