<?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>Court Upholds SEBI Penalties for Fraudulent Trade Practices, Finds No Grounds for Intervention in Tailored Decisions.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27474</link>
    <description>Fraudulent/ manipulative practices under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations - if the primary authority had thought it proper to impose different penalties in different cases involving different set of facts, we do not see how and why interference should be made in present appeals. - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:47 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Upholds SEBI Penalties for Fraudulent Trade Practices, Finds No Grounds for Intervention in Tailored Decisions.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27474</link>
      <description>Fraudulent/ manipulative practices under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations - if the primary authority had thought it proper to impose different penalties in different cases involving different set of facts, we do not see how and why interference should be made in present appeals. - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:47 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=27474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>