A detailed analysis of SAT Mumbai's decision to reduce SecureKloud Technologies' penalty for non-serious LODR violations, and its impact on regulatory compliance....

Regulation 17(1A) is not applicable for the purpose of filling up a casual vacancy under Section 161(4) of the Companies Act. Regulation 17(1A) cannot be read in isolation....

SAT held that annual listing fee payable inspite of suspension on Trading of Securities. Listing & trading of securities are distinct terms...

Held that a perusal of Clause 36 of the listing agreement provides for a company to inform the exchange on immediate basis of all events which will have a bearing on the performance/ operations of the company as well as price sensitive information....

Pranshu Bhutra Vs SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai) 1. The present appeal has been filed questioning the confirmatory order dated 15th September, 2021 confirming the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 31st May, 2021 whereby the appellant was restrained from buying or selling any securities, either directly or indirectly, till furth...

Mani Oommen Vs SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal) SAT held that once the appellant is not found responsible for the preparation of the financials of the company merely because he was not cautious or did not carry out due diligence properly will not suggest that the appellant colluded with the promoters and the directors of the […...

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal) 1. The present appeal has been filed questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 29th May, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer under section 15-1 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’...

Dr. Udayant Malhoutra Vs SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai) 1. The present appeal has been filed against an ex-parte order dated June 15, 2020 passed by the Whole Time Member (‘WTM’ for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,66...

In the present case, the appellant neither put a plea of prejudice before the AO nor before us. It was simply stated that since the proceedings were launched by respondent SEBI after a period seven years, the same should be quashed on the ground of delay. The record would show that all the documents concerning the defense of the appellant...

Advance Lifestyles Ltd. Vs BSE Ltd. (Securities Appellate Tribunal) Appellant made a representation to the authorities requesting for waiver / reduction of the penalty contending that for not appointing the Company Secretary and two independent directors on the Board / audit committee, the penalty may be waived under the exceptional circu...