https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194456 Fair hearing objections failed because the relied-upon material was substantially disclosed and the requested cross-examination concerned a witness not relied on in the impugned order, so no prejudice was shown. Market-manipulation allegations under regulation 4(a) and 4(d) were not proved, as the evidence did not establish sufficient nexus between the company and the alleged manipulative trading or the requisite direct or indirect intention. A capital-market debarment under section 11B and regulation 12(a) was held to be punitive rather than remedial and beyond the proper scope of that power, so the restraint was invalid. The direction to initiate prosecution against officers was treated as incidental and not interfered with in the appeal. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Sep 2017 14:55:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194456 Fair hearing objections failed because the relied-upon material was substantially disclosed and the requested cross-examination concerned a witness not relied on in the impugned order, so no prejudice was shown. Market-manipulation allegations under regulation 4(a) and 4(d) were not proved, as the evidence did not establish sufficient nexus between the company and the alleged manipulative trading or the requisite direct or indirect intention. A capital-market debarment under section 11B and regulation 12(a) was held to be punitive rather than remedial and beyond the proper scope of that power, so the restraint was invalid. The direction to initiate prosecution against officers was treated as incidental and not interfered with in the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194456