Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
The Tribunal held that the statutory promoter-group test under the ICDR Regulations could not be displaced by a pleaded family arrangement; on the admitted shareholding and control findings, the relevant entities were counted in the promoter group, causing public shareholding to fall below the prescribed minimum and resulting in breach of minimum public shareholding norms. It further found, on preponderance of probability, that trading in an illiquid scrip through connected persons, with concentrated inter se trades around the delisting exercise, showed an artificial attempt to project liquidity and facilitate delisting, so the fraudulent trading finding was affirmed. Debarment was reduced only for specified appellants on proportionality grounds.
The Tribunal held that the statutory promoter-group test under the ICDR Regulations could not be displaced by a pleaded family arrangement; on the admitted shareholding and control findings, the relevant entities were counted in the promoter group, causing public shareholding to fall below the prescribed minimum and resulting in breach of minimum public shareholding norms. It further found, on preponderance of probability, that trading in an illiquid scrip through connected persons, with concentrated inter se trades around the delisting exercise, showed an artificial attempt to project liquidity and facilitate delisting, so the fraudulent trading finding was affirmed. Debarment was reduced only for specified appellants on proportionality grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.