SEBI : Learn about the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and its role as a statutory and autonomous body under the SEBI Act. Understand...
SEBI : Article analyse landmark case of V.K. Kaul v. Adjudicating Officer Securities & SEBI. This case was decided on 8th of October 20...
SEBI : Securities Appellate Tribunal is a statutory body established under the provisions of Section 15K of the Securities and Exchange B...
CA, CS, CMA : A local court from Hyderabad on 08.12.2014 convicted Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju, accused of one of the most sensational corpo...
SEBI : SEBI penalty on Deccan Chronicle's Company Secretary overturned. Tribunal rules Company Secretary not responsible for verifying au...
SEBI : Explore recent SAT verdict in 20 Microns Limited v. BSE Limited case on Regulation 17(1A) of LODR. Learn about implications and a ...
SEBI : Dive into the Shreehas P Tambe vs. SEBI case, exploring insider trading regulations, violations, legalities, and the significant ...
SEBI : Vedanta Limited secures a victory as the Securities Appellate Tribunal overturns SEBI's fine. Details of the Cairn India buyback c...
SEBI : A detailed analysis of SAT Mumbai's decision to reduce SecureKloud Technologies' penalty for non-serious LODR violations, and its ...
Corporate Law : No person is qualified to be appointed as the Presiding Officer- (a) of the Securities Appellate Tribunal established under the Se...
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’) whereby the […]
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. 2,66,59,215/-plus interest till […]
SPL Industries Ltd. Vs BSE Limited (SAT Mumbai) Unintentional Failure on part of the Company to include the Audit Report in the Financial Results in XBRL uploaded on BSE website, for which BSE imposed fine of Rs. 5,54,600. However SAT reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,50,000 on the grounds that there was no deliberate intention […]
M/s New Delhi Television Limited Vs SEBI (SAT Mumbai) SAT upheld the order of SEBI penalising the Company and its Directors for non- disclosure of tax demand on the grounds that any information which have effect on the operations of the Company is price sensitive and must be disclosed immediately to the Stock exchange. However, […]
Dr. Prannoy Roy & Ors. Vs SEBI (SAT) it is essential for SEBI to supply a copy of the impugned order to the aggrieved party, namely, the appellants. An adjudication proceeding had been initiated by SEBI by issuance of the show cause notice. The appellants thus have the first right to be supplied a copy […]
No person is qualified to be appointed as the Presiding Officer- (a) of the Securities Appellate Tribunal established under the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), unless he is, or has been, a judge of Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High Court or a Judge of High Court for at least seven years;
Securities Appellate Tribunal is a statutory body established under the provisions of Section 15K of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to hear and to dispose appeals against orders passed by the Securities and Exchange board of India or by an adjudicating officer under the Act.
SAT determined and confirmed period from which Unpublished Price Sensitive Information shall be deemed to have come into force
A local court from Hyderabad on 08.12.2014 convicted Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju, accused of one of the most sensational corporate frauds in the country, and other accused in connection with complaints filed by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Since failure to make disclosure under each regulation constitutes independent offence attracting independent penalty, in the facts of present case, where there are multiple offences it would be just and proper to impose penalty for each offence independently depending upon the delay or default in making disclosures which are mandatory.
