Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT dismissed the appeal seeking restitution and refund of trading losses allegedly caused by a technical glitch in the stock exchange trading system. The appellant, an experienced securities market participant, had executed the mandatory risk disclosure declaration under the applicable Master Circular, thereby acknowledging the inherent risks of electronic trading. AT noted SEBI's regulatory finding that the glitch was short-lived, with most gateways restored within minutes, and held that the appellant's contrary claim of a two-hour disruption required evidentiary proof. As the principal relief sought was compensatory damages of Rs. 53.13 lakhs, AT held such a tortious claim lies exclusively before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction to award damages, AT found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it.
AT dismissed the appeal seeking restitution and refund of trading losses allegedly caused by a technical glitch in the stock exchange trading system. The appellant, an experienced securities market participant, had executed the mandatory risk disclosure declaration under the applicable Master Circular, thereby acknowledging the inherent risks of electronic trading. AT noted SEBI's regulatory finding that the glitch was short-lived, with most gateways restored within minutes, and held that the appellant's contrary claim of a two-hour disruption required evidentiary proof. As the principal relief sought was compensatory damages of Rs. 53.13 lakhs, AT held such a tortious claim lies exclusively before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction to award damages, AT found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.