Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant, being a director and connected person, traded in the company's shares while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information and thereby violated the prohibition against insider trading.
Analysis: The appellant was a director and therefore an insider within the meaning of the regulations. He purchased shares before the award of the contract was made public through the stock exchanges. The information that the tender process had reached the final stage and only the award remained was not public information from the perspective of ordinary shareholders. The definition of unpublished information turns on whether the information has been published by the company or its agents, and dissemination occurred only later. The reasoning adopted by the adjudicating officer could be sustained on the facts even if one of the stated grounds was not accepted, because the decisive question was whether the appellant traded while possessing unpublished price sensitive information.
Conclusion: The appellant was guilty of insider trading and the finding of violation was upheld against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A director who trades in the company's securities before material information is publicly disseminated acts in breach of insider trading prohibitions if he is in possession of unpublished price sensitive information, even where the information is at an advanced stage of disclosure but not yet made public.