Sudhir Moravekar

SAT-appeal

• Time-sharing schemes were unregistered CIS violating Sec 12(1B) read with CIS Reg 3; directors illegally mobilised funds violating Reg 4(2)(t) PFUTP.
  Tribunal held Reg 4(2)(t) violation not proved against appellant for want of fraud finding and no evidence of mobilisation after 2010 · Finding that time-sharing business is CIS affirmed via WTM order and final inter se; not reopened
  Appeal: Appeal No.424 of 2020 with Misc. Appl. 417/2020, 486/2020, 556/2021; reserved 21.02.2022, decided 02.03.2022
• SAT matter SATV-AD8753F7DE2059706F3E8DBC
  Both Misc. Applications Nos. 16 and 17 of 2016 allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh · Both miscellaneous applications disposed of with no order as to costs
  Appeal: Misc. Apps 16 of 2016 in Appeal 254 of 2014 and 17 of 2016 in Appeal 255 of 2014 disposed as withdrawn on 01.03.2016; main appeals pending
• SAT matter SATV-60CF533F42FFEC8F7149DA95
  Both misc. applications allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh · Both misc. applications disposed of with no order as to costs
  Appeal: Misc. Application No. 16 of 2016 in Appeal No. 254 of 2014 and Misc. Application No. 17 of 2016 in Appeal No. 255 of 2014 - misc applications withdrawn and disposed on 01.03.2016