Appeal dismissed; merger validity not reopened, leasehold rights transferred to corporate debtor formed liquidation estate; section 36(4)(a)(iv) inapp...
The SAT allowed the appeal, holding that disgorgement against the appellant is unsustainable because the appellant (lead manager) was implicated only in the initial stage of the fraud and not in the subsequent leg; accordingly the disgorgement direction is set aside as to the appellant. The Tribunal retained that a monetary penalty remains under consideration but found the impugned Rs. 67 crore penalty disproportionate given comparative precedents and the appellant's limited role, and directed the regulator to re-evaluate and re-quantify the penalty having regard to proportionality and parity. The restraint measures and other orders are modified to the extent inconsistent with this disposition.
The SAT allowed the appeal, holding that disgorgement against the appellant is unsustainable because the appellant (lead manager) was implicated only in the initial stage of the fraud and not in the subsequent leg; accordingly the disgorgement direction is set aside as to the appellant. The Tribunal retained that a monetary penalty remains under consideration but found the impugned Rs. 67 crore penalty disproportionate given comparative precedents and the appellant's limited role, and directed the regulator to re-evaluate and re-quantify the penalty having regard to proportionality and parity. The restraint measures and other orders are modified to the extent inconsistent with this disposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
