https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194661 Financing multiple share applications in a public issue does not, by itself, establish fraud or market manipulation under the FUTP framework. The Tribunal noted that liability required positive evidence of intentional participation in a scheme to manipulate the market or a real nexus between the financier and the alleged manipulation; that evidence was absent on the facts. It also held that irregular allotment arising from multiple applications could not automatically be treated as fraud, and debiting the purchase consideration in the financier's own account did not amount to falsification of books on the proved facts. The direction under section 11B of the SEBI Act was therefore unsustainable and was set aside as against the appellant. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:53:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194661 Financing multiple share applications in a public issue does not, by itself, establish fraud or market manipulation under the FUTP framework. The Tribunal noted that liability required positive evidence of intentional participation in a scheme to manipulate the market or a real nexus between the financier and the alleged manipulation; that evidence was absent on the facts. It also held that irregular allotment arising from multiple applications could not automatically be treated as fraud, and debiting the purchase consideration in the financier's own account did not amount to falsification of books on the proved facts. The direction under section 11B of the SEBI Act was therefore unsustainable and was set aside as against the appellant. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194661