SEBI : Explains the ruling that compliance officers cannot be penalised for financial misstatements without clear legal duty or proof of ...
SEBI : Explore the impact of the redesignation of independent directors in the SAT ruling - SecureKloud Technologies Limited vs. SEBI. A ...
CA, CS, CMA : It is ripe time for ICAI to take initiative and show leadership in conveying and educating the investors, regulators and other sta...
SEBI : Enclosed is the list of minimum periodic compliances to be done by a Listed Entity pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act...
SEBI : Comparative analysis between listing agreement and Chapter IV of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulation...
SEBI : NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today directed Sahara Group firm Sahara India Real Estate Corp to approach the Securities Appellate T...
Finance : Telecom tribunal TDSAT today asked another new operator Videocon Telecom to pay 60 per cent of Rs 12.45 crore penalty slapped on i...
SEBI : The Union Cabinet today approved amendments to the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act 1952 by introducing the Forward Contracts (...
SEBI : Takeovers are set to get costlier with a Sebi panel favouring making it mandatory for the acquirer to make an offer for up to 100 ...
SEBI : The market watchdog Sebi today moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the appellate tribunal SAT that held that finan...
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 : Regulation 17(1A) is not applicable for the purpose of filling up a casual vacancy under Section 161(4) of the Companies Act. Reg...
SEBI : In the present case, the appellant neither put a plea of prejudice before the AO nor before us. It was simply stated that since th...
SEBI : Advance Lifestyles Ltd. Vs BSE Ltd. (Securities Appellate Tribunal) Appellant made a representation to the authorities requesting ...
Explains the ruling that compliance officers cannot be penalised for financial misstatements without clear legal duty or proof of knowledge. Key takeaway: liability must be grounded in explicit statutory responsibility.
Explore recent SAT verdict in 20 Microns Limited v. BSE Limited case on Regulation 17(1A) of LODR. Learn about implications and a balanced approach to compliance.
Dive into the Shreehas P Tambe vs. SEBI case, exploring insider trading regulations, violations, legalities, and the significant SAT decision.
Explore the impact of the redesignation of independent directors in the SAT ruling – SecureKloud Technologies Limited vs. SEBI. A detailed analysis of violations, penalties, and 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.
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 were filed by her before the AO. Therefore, for want of any prejudice the proceedings cannot be quashed simply on the ground of delay in launching the same.
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 circumstances as carved out in […]
It is ripe time for ICAI to take initiative and show leadership in conveying and educating the investors, regulators and other stakeholders about the need to constructively assess the performance/review conducted by the auditor and then come to conclusion whether the auditors have failed to take reasonable procedures to identify the fraud.
Price Waterhouse & Co. Bangalore LLP & Ors. Vs SEBI (SAT Mumbai) SAT Held that Order of Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI debarring the PW firms to audit listed company on the ground of PW network or projecting it as a PW brand cannot be sustained. There is no doubt that there has been […]
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 […]
