https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464959 SAT upheld SEBI's rejection of the appellant company's application for registration as Portfolio Manager and its declaration, along with its directors, as not "fit and proper," including the bar on re-applying for five years. SAT found that SEBI correctly concluded the proposed Principal Officer lacked the requisite five years' relevant experience under Regulation 7(2)(d)(ii) and that false and misleading information was provided regarding his employment history, undermining integrity, reputation, and character. The tribunal rejected the plea of denial of natural justice, holding that adequate opportunity to respond had been given, and dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations of vengeance against SEBI. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2025 18:59:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464959 SAT upheld SEBI's rejection of the appellant company's application for registration as Portfolio Manager and its declaration, along with its directors, as not "fit and proper," including the bar on re-applying for five years. SAT found that SEBI correctly concluded the proposed Principal Officer lacked the requisite five years' relevant experience under Regulation 7(2)(d)(ii) and that false and misleading information was provided regarding his employment history, undermining integrity, reputation, and character. The tribunal rejected the plea of denial of natural justice, holding that adequate opportunity to respond had been given, and dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations of vengeance against SEBI. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464959