<?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>2006 (6) TMI 517 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195074</link>
    <description>Margin collection was held unnecessary where securities to be sold had already been received in advance with valid transfer documents, because the settlement-risk rationale for margin did not apply. Liability for aiding and abetting manipulative or fraudulent trades was also rejected: although the trades appeared synchronized, there was no material showing the broker knew the transactions were fictitious or participated beyond executing client instructions. The discrepancy in the client introduction form was treated as an inadvertent and later rectified error, and the suspension ground based on that discrepancy failed. On all grounds considered, the suspension order was found unsustainable and relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:09:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 517 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195074</link>
      <description>Margin collection was held unnecessary where securities to be sold had already been received in advance with valid transfer documents, because the settlement-risk rationale for margin did not apply. Liability for aiding and abetting manipulative or fraudulent trades was also rejected: although the trades appeared synchronized, there was no material showing the broker knew the transactions were fictitious or participated beyond executing client instructions. The discrepancy in the client introduction form was treated as an inadvertent and later rectified error, and the suspension ground based on that discrepancy failed. On all grounds considered, the suspension order was found unsustainable and relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>