<?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>2012 (6) TMI 868 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194892</link>
    <description>Information about a company securing new infrastructure projects was not shown to be unpublished price sensitive information under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, because the projects arose in the ordinary course of business, were disclosed under the company&#039;s threshold-based intimation practice, and did not on the record demonstrate a material effect on share price. The tribunal noted that the company already had a large order book and that tender-based contract awards in this context were not inherently price sensitive. The finding of insider trading also could not stand where it relied on incorrect assumptions about the contracts and on transactions not covered by the show-cause notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 868 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194892</link>
      <description>Information about a company securing new infrastructure projects was not shown to be unpublished price sensitive information under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, because the projects arose in the ordinary course of business, were disclosed under the company&#039;s threshold-based intimation practice, and did not on the record demonstrate a material effect on share price. The tribunal noted that the company already had a large order book and that tender-based contract awards in this context were not inherently price sensitive. The finding of insider trading also could not stand where it relied on incorrect assumptions about the contracts and on transactions not covered by the show-cause notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>