The complainant argued that the section 35 advertising obligation was only born when the shares were mortgaged by a promoter or support group. Even the SEBI circular of February 3, 2009 required the exchanges to amend Clause 35 of the listing agreement to include the details of the actions promised by the project proponents and the group of promoters in accordance with the format attached to it. Since the circular refers to the publication of information on pawn actions by promoters/promoters of projects, the term “pawned or otherwise debited shares” in the format attached to the circular of 3 February 2009 must be limited to the burden resulting from the pledge born in contradiction with the provisions of Regulation 58 of the SEBI regulation (depositors and participants). In its judgment of 30 October 2014, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) found in Golden Tobacco Ltd- GHCL Ltd/SEBI that the section 35 format of the list agreement, which requires the listed company to disclose to the stock exchange the details of the shares of the promoter group that are “otherwise debited” by the organizing/promoter group, was unjustified and goes beyond the scope of that clause, as stated in the listing agreement. In accordance with the SEBI circular of 3 February 2009, it is obligatory to provide the listed company with information relating to the shares of the listed company held by the organising/promoter group and which are mortgaged/revoked/seized by the promoter group, on the other hand, in accordance with the format prescribed in point 35 of the Listing Agreement, the publicly traded company is required not only to disclose to the stock exchange the details of the shares mortgaged by the Promoter/Promoter group, but also to disclose the details of the shares held by the organiser. In the absence of clear instructions provided by SAT SEBI to change the format of section 35, companies will make virtually such disclosures even if they are not required to do so in light of this SAT ruling. In addition (and to our knowledge), the verdict has not yet been challenged in the Indian Court of Honour. In 2010, SEBI filed a complaint with the complainant (who was a listed company) and argued that, pursuant to section 35 of the revised list agreement, the complainant had not notified the Stock Exchange that an arbitration decision had deterred nine of the complainant`s carriers from selling, transferring or creating shares of the company in any way. Is a company listed in the format attached to point 35 of the listing agreement required to provide the stock exchange with details of the “otherwise taxed” shares of that listed company held by the promoter/promoter group, when there is no obligation for the Promoter/Promoter Group to provide such information to the listed company? Sat indicated that, pursuant to Article 35 of the list agreement, only details of the actions that are pledged/removed/invoked are disclosed and that there has been no obligation for the group`s promoters/promoters who are otherwise debited.