<?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 (9) TMI 216 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331955</link>
    <description>Material facts necessary for an informed investment decision had to be disclosed in the offer document, including bridge loans, intended investment of IPO proceeds in ICDs, and land acquisition commitments; the non-disclosure was proved in part, though omissions regarding purchase orders and two supplier names were not sustained. Allegations of diversion of IPO proceeds and fraudulent market manipulation under the PFUTP Regulations failed because the record did not establish the required cogent evidence of a proven nexus, common control, or deliberate scheme. As only partial disclosure lapses were made out, the ten-year securities-market debarment was held excessive and reduced to seven years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 13:33:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 216 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331955</link>
      <description>Material facts necessary for an informed investment decision had to be disclosed in the offer document, including bridge loans, intended investment of IPO proceeds in ICDs, and land acquisition commitments; the non-disclosure was proved in part, though omissions regarding purchase orders and two supplier names were not sustained. Allegations of diversion of IPO proceeds and fraudulent market manipulation under the PFUTP Regulations failed because the record did not establish the required cogent evidence of a proven nexus, common control, or deliberate scheme. As only partial disclosure lapses were made out, the ten-year securities-market debarment was held excessive and reduced to seven years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>