Therefore, while implicit in the SAT ruling, SEBI`s order applies in the case of Dewan Housing Finance; In the absence of clear instructions from SAT to SEBI to change the format under Term 35, companies will continue to make such advertisements in other respects, even if this judgment does not require them to do so. Furthermore, the judgment (and to our knowledge) has not yet been challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. Neither clause 35 of the listing agreement nor any other clause in the listing agreement requires the promoter or group of promoters to disclose to the company the “otherwise encumbered” shares. Therefore, the format set out in the annex to clause 35 of the listing agreement, which requires the listed company to disclose to the exchanges the details of the shares `otherwise encumbered` by the promoter/promoter group, without the promoter group being required to make such a disclosure in respect of the listed company, goes beyond the scope of clause 35 of the Listing Agreement and runs counter to SEBI`s decision in principle. In its judgment of 30 in Golden Tobacco Ltd & GHCL Ltd v SEBI, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) ruled that the format annexed to clause 35 of the listing agreement, which requires the listed company to disclose to the Exchange the details of the shares of the promoter or group of promoters “otherwise encumbered” by the promoter or group of promoters, is unjustified and goes beyond the scope of that clause, as set out in the listing agreement. The applicant argued that the disclosure obligation referred to in Article 35 was no longer applicable unless the shares were mortgaged by the promoter or group of promoters. Even the SEBI circular of 3 February 2009 required exchanges to amend clause 35 of the listing agreement to include details of the shares mortgaged by the promoters and the promoter group, depending on the format it contains. Since the circular concerns the disclosure of details of the shares pledged by the promoters/group of promoters, the term `mortgaged or otherwise debited shares` in the format attached to the circular of 3 February 2009 should be limited to the charges resulting from a pledge established in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 of the SEBI Regulation (depositary and participant). SAT was right to find that, if, on the one hand, the promoters are not required to disclose to the company the details of the shares `otherwise encumbered` under clause 35, even in their amended form, it was not correct to require the company to disclose such charges to the Exchange in the format prescribed by that clause. In 2010, SEBI issued a communication to the complainant (which was a publicly traded company), claiming that the complaining company had not notified the Exchange, in accordance with clause 35 of the amended listing agreement, that nine project promoters had been prevented by arbitration from selling, transferring or humiliating, in one way or another, shares of third parties in the shares of the applicant company. SAT found that, in accordance with clause 35 of the promoter/promoter group`s listing agreement, only details of mortgaged/revoked/claimed shares were to be disclosed, and there was no obligation that was burned to the promoter/group of promoters, otherwise encumbered.