https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261097 An appellate tribunal declined to interfere where the appellants had not replied to the show-cause notice or availed personal hearing, and it refused to consider fresh material first produced in appeal. On the record before the adjudicating authority, it upheld the finding that IPO proceeds were routed through interconnected entities in a manner that created a complex appearance and facilitated listing-day trade obligations, constituting violations of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations. The tribunal also held that, although penalty quantum must be assessed with reference to the factors under Section 15J of the SEBI Act, no demonstrable infirmity justified reduction of penalty on the facts established. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Nov 2025 13:10:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261097 An appellate tribunal declined to interfere where the appellants had not replied to the show-cause notice or availed personal hearing, and it refused to consider fresh material first produced in appeal. On the record before the adjudicating authority, it upheld the finding that IPO proceeds were routed through interconnected entities in a manner that created a complex appearance and facilitated listing-day trade obligations, constituting violations of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations. The tribunal also held that, although penalty quantum must be assessed with reference to the factors under Section 15J of the SEBI Act, no demonstrable infirmity justified reduction of penalty on the facts established. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 19 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261097