<?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>2016 (2) TMI 723 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272018</link>
    <description>Fraudulent or manipulative trading in illiquid scrips may be established by circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities under the SEBI framework, where the totality of trading patterns points to a concerted course of conduct creating a false appearance of market activity or affecting price. Repeated synchronized or circular orders, close buy-sell proximity, heavy volume, and persistent trading patterns are material indicators. On the proved facts, liability was not made out against one broker because the evidence showed only a vigilance lapse, but liability was sustained against the remaining respondents because the surrounding circumstances justified an inference of manipulation. The natural justice challenge failed because the trade-log extracts disclosed the relevant pattern and no prejudice from withheld material was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 15:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 723 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272018</link>
      <description>Fraudulent or manipulative trading in illiquid scrips may be established by circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities under the SEBI framework, where the totality of trading patterns points to a concerted course of conduct creating a false appearance of market activity or affecting price. Repeated synchronized or circular orders, close buy-sell proximity, heavy volume, and persistent trading patterns are material indicators. On the proved facts, liability was not made out against one broker because the evidence showed only a vigilance lapse, but liability was sustained against the remaining respondents because the surrounding circumstances justified an inference of manipulation. The natural justice challenge failed because the trade-log extracts disclosed the relevant pattern and no prejudice from withheld material was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>