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>NSE colocation case: Tribunal quashes Rs 62.58 crore disgorgement orders, sets aside debarment of former officials</h1> <h3>National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., GKN Securities, Sonali Gupta, Om Prakash Gupta, Rahul Gupta, Deviprasad Singh, Mr. Ravi Varanasi, Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Way2wealth Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Mr. M.R. Shashibhushan, Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., GKN Securities, Sonali Gupta, Om Prakash Gupta, Rahul Gupta, Deviprasad Singh, Mr. Ravi Varanasi, Mr. Nagendra ... Issues Involved:1. Non-transparent communication by NSE.2. Preferential treatment and discrimination by NSE.3. Verification of Sampark's license.4. Latency advantage to W2W and GKN.5. Collusion and fraud allegations.6. Disgorgement and penalties.Summary:Non-transparent communication by NSE:The Tribunal found that the notification of 2013 did not amend the circular of 2009 but only provided more information. The Tribunal held that the finding that the 2013 notification was vague due to lack of cross-reference to the 2009 circular was erroneous. All circulars and notifications were posted on NSE's website, and it was expected that all Trading Members (TMs) would be aware of such information. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of Regulation 41(2) of the SECC Regulations and Clause 3 of the SEBI Circular dated May 13, 2015.Preferential treatment and discrimination by NSE:The Tribunal found that when the licensing issue of Sampark was discovered, NSE took remedial measures by transitioning the connectivity to Reliance, which did not indicate any preferential treatment to W2W or GKN. The Tribunal held that the finding of preferential treatment and discrimination against Millennium and Mansukh was erroneous. The Tribunal also noted that the entire issue was resolved within 24 days, and thus the central charge was unfounded.Verification of Sampark's license:The Tribunal held that NSE failed to carry out due diligence in verifying Sampark's license. However, it found no deliberate attempt by NSE to defraud other TMs. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations or Regulation 41(2) of the SECC Regulations.Latency advantage to W2W and GKN:The Tribunal found that the allegation of latency advantage given to W2W was based on surmises and conjectures. It was noted that no evidence showed that data reached W2W before going to Sampark's MUX in the NSE MMR. The Tribunal concluded that there was no latency advantage given to W2W or GKN.Collusion and fraud allegations:The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of collusion or fraud by NSE or the brokers. It held that the charge of fraud under Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations read with Section 12A of the SEBI Act was not proved. The Tribunal emphasized that fraud cannot be inferred solely based on negligence.Disgorgement and penalties:The Tribunal quashed the direction to disgorge Rs. 62.58 crore along with interest against NSE, Rs. 15.34 crore against W2W, and Rs. 4.9 crore against GKN, as no wrongful gain was found. However, the Tribunal sustained other directions under Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act. The Tribunal also quashed the directions debarring Chitra Ramkrishna, Mr. Ravi Varanasi, Mr. Nagendra Kumar, Mr. Deviprasad Singh, and Mr. M. R. Shashibhushan from holding positions in any stock exchange, clearing corporation, or depository, but allowed for the imposition of penalties if any violations were found. The Tribunal affirmed the direction restraining W2W and GKN from accepting new clients and trading in their proprietary accounts for specified periods.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found