<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (7) TMI 129 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261168</link>
    <description>An adjudication order imposing penalties for alleged self-trades and manipulative trading in Veritas (India) Ltd. was found unsustainable because the show cause notices and order did not clearly explain the basis of alleged illegal gains or the nexus between the trading pattern and the invoked SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations. The Tribunal noted that in a self-trade the buy and sell price are the same, making the alleged gain unclear, and that the broker&#039;s explanation of coincidental trades without manipulative intent was not properly addressed. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication before a different officer after fresh show cause notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:51:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 129 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261168</link>
      <description>An adjudication order imposing penalties for alleged self-trades and manipulative trading in Veritas (India) Ltd. was found unsustainable because the show cause notices and order did not clearly explain the basis of alleged illegal gains or the nexus between the trading pattern and the invoked SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations. The Tribunal noted that in a self-trade the buy and sell price are the same, making the alleged gain unclear, and that the broker&#039;s explanation of coincidental trades without manipulative intent was not properly addressed. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication before a different officer after fresh show cause notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>