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>SEBI's Appeal Decisions Uphold Penalties, Farmax Penalty Reduced, Nithish Bangera Cleared</h1> <h3>Nithish Bangera, Sanjay Aggarwal, European American Investment Bank AG, Farmax India Limited, Mr. M. Srinivasa Reddy, M.D. Farmax India Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> Nithish Bangera, Sanjay Aggarwal, European American Investment Bank AG, Farmax India Limited, Mr. M. Srinivasa Reddy, M.D. Farmax India Ltd. Versus ... Issues Involved:1. Issuance and conversion of Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) by Farmax India Ltd.2. Alleged fraudulent scheme involving various parties.3. Penalties imposed by SEBI.4. Role and actions of individual appellants and entities.5. Jurisdiction of SEBI over foreign entities.Detailed Analysis:1. Issuance and Conversion of GDRs by Farmax India Ltd.:The appeals concern the issuance of GDRs by Farmax India Ltd. in two tranches on June 29, 2010, and August 14, 2010, amounting to US$ 71.91 million. SEBI alleged that the issuance and subsequent conversion of these GDRs into equity shares in the Indian market constituted a fraudulent scheme involving Farmax and other co-noticees.2. Alleged Fraudulent Scheme:SEBI contended that the GDR issuance was part of a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Farmax, Arun Panchariya, Vintage FZE, and other entities. Vintage, wholly owned by Arun Panchariya, was the sole subscriber to the GDRs, having availed a loan from EURAM Bank. Farmax had pledged the GDR proceeds to secure this loan, indicating that the GDR proceeds were not at Farmax's disposal but were used as collateral for Vintage's loan.3. Penalties Imposed by SEBI:The Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI directed Farmax to bring back the outstanding amount of US$ 72.20 million and restrained it from accessing the securities market for five years. Managing Director Mr. Srinivasa Reddy was similarly restrained. Sanjay Aggarwal and Nithish Bangera faced two-year prohibitions. Prospect Capital Ltd. and John Behar were barred from rendering services in connection with securities for two years. EURAM Bank was warned to ensure future compliance with Indian securities laws.4. Role and Actions of Individual Appellants and Entities:Farmax India Limited and Mr. M. Srinivasa Reddy:Mr. Srinivasa Reddy claimed he signed blank documents handed over to Sanjay Aggarwal and Mukesh Chauradiya. The WTM noted contradictory stands and concluded that Farmax and Mr. Reddy were aware of the transactions, as evidenced by a Board Resolution authorizing the use of funds as security. The appeals by Farmax and Mr. Reddy were dismissed, but the penalty on Farmax was reduced from Rs. 12 crore to Rs. 5 crore.Sanjay Aggarwal and Nithish Bangera:Sanjay Aggarwal and Nithish Bangera were found to have facilitated the fraudulent GDR issue. Aggarwal provided drafts for Board Resolutions and sought blank transfer slips, indicating his involvement. Bangera, despite claiming to have resigned, was found to have continued involvement. Aggarwal's appeal was dismissed, while Bangera's appeal was allowed, and the order against him was set aside.Prospect Capital Ltd. and John Behar:Prospect Capital Ltd., as the Lead Manager, and John Behar were found to have provided incorrect investor lists and failed to procure genuine investors. Their connection with Arun Panchariya and failure to adhere to due diligence were noted. Their appeals were dismissed.European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM Bank):EURAM Bank was found to have accepted GDR proceeds as collateral for a loan to Vintage, indicating its involvement in the fraudulent scheme. Despite previous exoneration in another case, the principle of issue estoppel was not applicable. The appeal by EURAM Bank was dismissed.5. Jurisdiction of SEBI Over Foreign Entities:The Supreme Court of India in SEBI vs. Pan Asia Advisors Ltd. established that SEBI has jurisdiction over foreign entities if their actions affect the Indian securities market. This precedent confirmed SEBI's authority to proceed against the appellants in this case.Conclusion:The appeals by Farmax India Ltd., Mr. M. Srinivasa Reddy, Sanjay Aggarwal, Prospect Capital Ltd., John Behar, and EURAM Bank were dismissed, affirming SEBI's findings and penalties, except for the reduction in the penalty imposed on Farmax. The appeal by Nithish Bangera was allowed, setting aside the order against him.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found