https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467832 Incorrect disclosure of two persons as promoters in the quarterly shareholding pattern under clause 35 of the Listing Agreement, read with section 21 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, was treated as a technical lapse because the error was corrected in the next quarterly filing and there was no evidence of mala fide intent or ulterior motive. On those facts, the disclosure mistake was not considered sufficient to justify monetary penalty under section 23E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the notice was disposed of in favour of the noticee. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 11:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467832 Incorrect disclosure of two persons as promoters in the quarterly shareholding pattern under clause 35 of the Listing Agreement, read with section 21 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, was treated as a technical lapse because the error was corrected in the next quarterly filing and there was no evidence of mala fide intent or ulterior motive. On those facts, the disclosure mistake was not considered sufficient to justify monetary penalty under section 23E of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the notice was disposed of in favour of the noticee. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467832