NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Absence of pre-trade authorisation is not conclusive of unauthorised trading and, by itself, may only trigger regulatory consequences; a client who does not object within a reasonable time cannot ordinarily disown the trades. Here, however, the HC upheld the arbitral award because the arbitrator found, on WhatsApp messages, audio recordings and transaction data, that the trades were manipulated, induced by promises of high returns, and continued under pressure, amounting to blatantly unauthorised and prejudicial trading. The Court also held that the broker was vicariously liable for fraudulent acts carried out by its Alliance Partner and employees in the course of the broker's business, so no patent illegality or perversity justified interference under Section 37.
Absence of pre-trade authorisation is not conclusive of unauthorised trading and, by itself, may only trigger regulatory consequences; a client who does not object within a reasonable time cannot ordinarily disown the trades. Here, however, the HC upheld the arbitral award because the arbitrator found, on WhatsApp messages, audio recordings and transaction data, that the trades were manipulated, induced by promises of high returns, and continued under pressure, amounting to blatantly unauthorised and prejudicial trading. The Court also held that the broker was vicariously liable for fraudulent acts carried out by its Alliance Partner and employees in the course of the broker's business, so no patent illegality or perversity justified interference under Section 37.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
