Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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.