Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Fraudulent trading and minimum public shareholding breaches upheld; debarment reduced on proportionality, and appeals dismissed.</h1> Fraudulent trading in an illiquid scrip, failure to maintain minimum public shareholding, and debarment on proportionality were the central issues ... Fraudulent trading in illiquid scrip - Promoter group - Minimum public shareholding (MPS) norms - proportionality of debarment - The Tribunal upheld the findings that Riddhi Siddhi had failed to maintain minimum public shareholding and that the connected appellants had engaged in fraudulent trading to project liquidity in the scrip for delisting purposes. The penalty order in one appeal was sustained, the principal directions of the WTM were maintained, and only the period of debarment was reduced for specified appellants on proportionality. HELD THAT:- Having heard both the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the respondent, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned final order [2026 (3) TMI 1255 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI] No substantial question of law arises for consideration in our opinion. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Outcome: Appeals dismissed.