Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 36 amendment of section 48 Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Page 1 of about 61 results (0.209 seconds)

In Re: Shalibhadra Infosec Ltd.

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... of the sebi (futp) regulations, 1995, regulation 10 of the takeover regulations, and regulation 13 (3) of the sebi (insider trading) regulations, 1992 as amended in 2003.23. these additional charges are discussed and the provisions are reproduced below: 3. no person shall buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in a ..... several thousand genuine investors. various claims made in the advertisement regarding the richness of its intellectual capital ("fuelled with brain") and technological prowess are patently false.the advertisement and other information disseminated by the company regarding its performance and profits have been examined by an independent chartered accountant and found to ..... .57. vinod desai has also not responded to the scn dated february 9, 2005. for the reasons stated above and taking into account the transactions in the scrip of sil, his joint demat accounts with other persons acting in concert and the securities flow as discussed it is clearly established that vinod .....

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2006)2CompLJ151TelecomDSAT

..... determined.3. respondent in the appeal is the telecom regulatory authority of india (trai) which is the regulatory body constituted under the telecom regulatory authority of india act, 1997 (as amended in january 2004) 4. the appellant has challenged the said tariff order and has made the following prayers: (a) setting aside and quashing the impugned notification ..... to be given to them to present their arguments. accordingly hearings were given in several sittings starting 3.10.2005 and continued on 4.10.2005, 24.10.2005, 26.10.2005, 7.11.2005, 8.11.2005 and 11.11.2005.on the basis of the arguments put forth before us we have identified the key issues which need to ..... the objection of trai that this appeal is not maintainable in as much as tariff fixation under section 11(2) of the act is a legislative function, such a submission is patently against the provisions of the act, under section 11(2) is appealable to tdsat. that being the position, it is difficult to appreciate the argument that .....

Cellular Operators Association Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... pulse rates shall be applicable to inter network calls. no hearing was given to bsnl before passing these orders by the telecom regulatory authority of india act, 1997(as amended). on 25th january 2001, bsnl made a representation to the trai objecting to the notification of the date. on 26th january 2001 the new tariff ..... be issued by trai, since it is a continuous, ongoing and evolutionary process. the regime of adc is well-known since the january 2003 regulation and subsequent amendments. we also find from the document submitted by the appellants themselves that trai had made a mention in the explanatory note that they are considering imposition of ..... v. coai dated 28th april 2005 - this tribunal had ordered as follows:- "we must, therefore, overrule the objection of trai that this appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as tariff fixation under section 11(2) of the act is a legislative function. such a submission is patently against the provisions of the act, under which an order of the .....

Ksl and Industries Ltd., Shri Vs. Chairman, Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)59SCL1SAT

..... the penalty as such." the fact that section 11 b did not include penal provisions is also justified by the fact that the legislature has enacted an amendment act, 2002 inserting section 11(4) and empowering the board to take measures specified therein for restraining persons from accessing the securities market and prohibiting any person associated ..... 1 is illegal and/or prohibited by law.10.17 the learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the jurisdiction of sebi under the sebi act, 1992 until the enactment of amendment act, 2002, subject to two-fold limitations viz: (i) the power was available for exercise only against specified intermediaries and not against other entities ..... for the misconduct and violation of law as narrated above. a reference may be made to the case of skipper v. dda reported in air 1996 sc 2005.11.29 the learned senior counsel for the respondent further submitted that the above offences are absolute offences and no mens rea is required to be established .....

Ubs Securities Asia Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)6CompLJ64SAT

..... may 5, 2005. the order says: "11.2. in the light of the above and in exercise of the powers conferred on me in terms of section 19 of the sebi act, 1992, read with section 11(4) and 11b of sebi act, 1992, i hereby prohibit ubs / its affiliates / agents from issuing off-shore ..... , the appellant regretted this error which happened inadvertently due to incompatibility of the appellant's internal infrastructure and software system. the appellant had acknowledged error and amended the reports. moreover these errors were not subject of the show cause notice dated 24/11/2004.56. the learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned order ..... from various retail investors to pool the funds against underlying indian securities and the return could be linked to equity index. pns are extra-territorial instruments.68. the amendment to the existing format of circular of 31st october, 2001 was introduced on 8th august, 2003 which changed the reporting format for issuance / renewal / cancellation / .....

Guru Teak Investment (Mysore) Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)64SCL403SAT

..... with the consent of parties.2. the appellant being aggrieved by the order of sebi dated 18/02/2005 has preferred this appeal. by the impugned order sebi has exercised powers under section 11b of the sebi act, 1992 read with regulation 65 and 73 of the sebi (collective investment scheme) regulation, 1999 (hereinafter ..... communication dated 09/07/2001 was pleased to grant provisional registration under regulation 70(1) read with regulation 71(1) of the regulations. [the previous regulation was amended w.e.f. 01/07/2001]. the respondent imposed 11 conditions while granting provisional registration in order to obtain final registration. the 11 conditions were: (i ..... 71,49,5727-(one crore seventy one lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and seventy two only) per month. on its operations as detailed in the amended statement. in addition on account of certain adverse publicity for the company undertaken by certain vested interest during the pendency of this appeal, several investors demanded .....

Association of Basic Telecom Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)5CompLJ334TelecomDSAT

..... and conditions of interconnectivity between the service providers notwithstanding anything contained in the terms and conditions of the licenses granted before the commencement of telecom regulatory authority of india (amendment) act, 2000. (ix) since bsnl/dot had clearly accepted the port charges as prescribed by the trai and had brought them into effect from 1.5.1999, and ..... . trai had come out with the impugned regulations although it was in the process of determining the cost based interconnection/ carriage charges. it pointed out that under the amended act of 2000, trai was empowered to issue the impugned interconnection regulation, as under section 11(1)(b)(ii) and 11(1)(b)(iii) thereof, it was required ..... . the judgment has been analyzed in depth by us in appeals 11 & 12 of 2002, bsnl v. trai and mtnl v. trai, (decided on 27/4/2005). the question that was taken up for decision by the division bench has been very clearly stated in its own words as under:- one of the common grounds in .....

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)3CompLJ478TelecomDSAT

..... read with sub-clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of section 11(1) of the act by telecommunication interconnection usage charges (4th amendment) regulation (1 of 2005) by notification dated 6 january 2005, and bringing into force the amended regulation with effect from 1 february 2005.3. at the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by trai questioning the jurisdiction of this appellate ..... constituted under that very amendment act. functions of the trai are what are described in section 11 of the act and that of tdsat under section 14 thereof. these respective powers of trai and tdsat were clearly spell out in appeal no. 2 of 2004 decided on 21 april 2004 [bharat sanchar nigam ltd. v telecom regulatory authority of india {(2005) 2 comp lj .....

Toubro Infotech and Industries Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of In ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)3CompLJ305SAT

..... otherwise as being a domestic concern of the persons making and receiving the offer or invitation." [emphasis supplied] the first proviso to section 67(3) inserted by the companies (amendment) act, 2000 with effect from 13-12-2000 sets at rest the question by stating that if an invitation to subscription is made to 50 or more persons, it ceases to ..... jurisdiction. we do not think such drastic measures are contemplated under section 11b de hors section 11(4) [read the aims and objects of the reasons of amending act of 2002].50. we find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, having carefully perused the statement and objects and reasons of the ..... amending act 2002.51. however, we feel it is not necessary for us to give a finding one way or the other since we have taken a practical view .....

Samir C. Arora Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)59SCL96SAT

..... the appellant.65. the learned senior counsel shri c.a. sundaram also raised the question of availability of section 11 of sebi act, 1992 to the respondent for passing orders of this nature even after the amendment of the act in 2002. it was the contention of the learned senior counsel that section 11 of the sebi ..... act related to powers and functions of the board and it conferred the power on the board only to issue appropriate directions in emergent ..... ) regulations, 1995. these regulations forbid a person from entering into transactions in securities with the intention of artificially affecting the prices of securities or indulging in acts calculated to create a false or misleading appearance of trading or any non-genuine transactions not intended to effect transfer of beneficial ownership. the evidence cited in .....