Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Investment disposal not insider trading, penalties invalidated. SEBI regulations clarified.</h1> <h3>Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Ltd Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> Gujarat NRE Mineral Resources Ltd Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the decision to dispose of a part of its investment by a listed investment company constitutes 'price sensitive information' requiring mandatory disclosure under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992.2. Whether there was a violation of regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI regulations and clause 2.1 in Schedule II to the regulations by the appellants.3. Determination of the penalties imposed on the appellants for the alleged violations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Price Sensitive Information:The primary question was whether the decision by FCGL Industries Ltd. (FCGL) to dispose of a part of its investment in Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. (the Coke company) was 'price sensitive information' as per the SEBI regulations. The definition of 'price sensitive information' under regulation 2(ha) includes any information likely to materially affect the price of securities if published. The adjudicating officer had concluded that the decision to sell shares of the Coke company was price sensitive, relying on clause (vi) of the explanation to the definition, which includes the 'disposal of the whole or substantial part of the undertaking.'However, the Tribunal found that FCGL, being an investment company, regularly buys and sells securities as part of its normal business activity. It was determined that such decisions by an investment company do not materially affect the price of its securities. The Tribunal clarified that the term 'undertaking' refers to the business activity or project of a company, not the investments held by an investment company. Therefore, the decision to dispose of a part of its investment was not considered price sensitive information.2. Violation of Regulations:The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) alleged that Matangi Traders and Investors Limited and Marley Foods Private Limited had bought shares of FCGL based on unpublished price sensitive information. The Tribunal noted that both Shri G. L. Jagatramka and Shri A. K. Jagatramka, who attended the FCGL board meeting, were also directors of Matangi and Marley. These entities traded in FCGL shares during the investigation period, and SEBI argued that this was a violation of regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI regulations, which prohibit insider trading.However, since the Tribunal concluded that the decision to dispose of the investment was not price sensitive information, the basis for alleging insider trading was invalidated. The Tribunal emphasized that the increase in FCGL's share price was due to the acquisition of coal mines in Australia, which was disclosed to the market and was indeed price sensitive information.3. Penalties Imposed:The adjudicating officer had imposed monetary penalties on the appellants: Rs. 1 crore on Marley, Rs. 20 lacs on Matangi, and Rs. 40 lacs each on the two Jagatramkas. These penalties were based on the alleged violations of the SEBI regulations and clause 2.1 of the Code of Corporate Disclosure Practices.Given the Tribunal's finding that the decision to sell shares was not price sensitive, the basis for imposing these penalties was undermined. The Tribunal concluded that the non-disclosure of the source of funds was part of the normal business activity of an investment company and did not constitute a violation of the regulations.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal found that the decision taken by FCGL to dispose of its investment in the Coke company was not price sensitive information, and therefore, there was no violation of the SEBI regulations by the appellants. Consequently, the penalties imposed were invalidated, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found