<?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>2013 (8) TMI 1056 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195482</link>
    <description>Synchronized trading and artificial volume creation were not proved because the material showed no cogent evidence of collusion or meeting of minds; common address or group connection alone was insufficient, and synchronized trading is not unlawful without illegitimate concert. The proceedings were also vitiated because relied-upon trade logs and investigation material were not supplied properly, impairing the defence, and because an unexplained delay of more than a decade between the trades, notice and final order caused prejudice. On both grounds, the restraint order could not be sustained and the matter was decided in favour of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1056 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195482</link>
      <description>Synchronized trading and artificial volume creation were not proved because the material showed no cogent evidence of collusion or meeting of minds; common address or group connection alone was insufficient, and synchronized trading is not unlawful without illegitimate concert. The proceedings were also vitiated because relied-upon trade logs and investigation material were not supplied properly, impairing the defence, and because an unexplained delay of more than a decade between the trades, notice and final order caused prejudice. On both grounds, the restraint order could not be sustained and the matter was decided in favour of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>