TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the company was proved to have indulged in market manipulation attracting regulation 4(a) and regulation 4(d) of the 1995 Regulations, and whether the direction debarring it from raising money from the public in the capital market for three years could be sustained under section 11, section 11B and regulation 12(a).
Analysis: The charge of manipulation rested on three asserted circumstances: the promoters' open offer at a higher price, the alleged routing of funds through group entities to brokers connected with Damayanti group, and the alleged bail-out of brokers during the payment crisis. The open offer was found to be a transparent creeping-acquisition route, disclosed to SEBI in advance and ultimately honoured by purchase of the shares at the announced price. In the absence of evidence that the offer was a device to create an artificial market or that the company obtained any established profit from the price movement, the announcement by itself was held not to constitute market manipulation. As to the alleged fund flow, the record showed movement of monies through several group entities, but the evidence did not satisfactorily establish that the money was the company's own funds, or that Damayanti group acted at its behest for the purpose of manipulating the scrip. The alleged bail-out was also not proved, on the material, to be a quid pro quo arrangement linked to manipulation of the company's shares. The Tribunal held that a serious allegation of market manipulation cannot rest on conjecture or suspicion and must be supported by reliable evidence showing the necessary intention and nexus. The direction barring the company from accessing the capital market was also held to be punitive in effect, not preventive or remedial, and beyond the scope of section 11B and regulation 12(a), because raising capital from the public is not the same as dealing in securities and such a prohibition could not be justified as investor protection in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The finding of violation of regulation 4(a) and regulation 4(d) was not sustained, and the prohibition on raising money from the public in the capital market was held unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the substantive directions against the company were set aside, leaving no upheld finding of market manipulation on the material considered.
TaxTMI 
