https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261579 Prior proceedings for similar disclosure violations showed that the appellant was aware of takeover and insider-trading disclosure obligations, so ignorance of the requirement was not accepted as a defence. The admitted facts also showed that the acquisition could be communicated to the company, yet the mandatory disclosures were not made within the prescribed time. On that basis, the non-disclosure was treated as repetitive and deliberate, and the monetary penalty was found to call for no interference. en-us Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261579 Prior proceedings for similar disclosure violations showed that the appellant was aware of takeover and insider-trading disclosure obligations, so ignorance of the requirement was not accepted as a defence. The admitted facts also showed that the acquisition could be communicated to the company, yet the mandatory disclosures were not made within the prescribed time. On that basis, the non-disclosure was treated as repetitive and deliberate, and the monetary penalty was found to call for no interference. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261579