https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196566 Regulation 4(a) and 4(d) of the 1995 PFUTP Regulations were explained as targeting transactions intended to artificially raise or depress prices, or transactions used only as a device to inflate, depress, or cause price fluctuations without genuine transfer of beneficial ownership. The Tribunal held that manipulation must still be supported by reasonably acceptable material showing the appellant's direct or indirect participation. On the evidence of the El Dorado share purchase and the MALCO funding arrangement, it found the regulator had not proved that the appellant funded, directed, or used those transactions to manipulate prices. The alleged links with the Damayanti Group and Harshad Mehta were also not established, and the market-access bar and proposed prosecution were not sustainable. en-us Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:50:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196566 Regulation 4(a) and 4(d) of the 1995 PFUTP Regulations were explained as targeting transactions intended to artificially raise or depress prices, or transactions used only as a device to inflate, depress, or cause price fluctuations without genuine transfer of beneficial ownership. The Tribunal held that manipulation must still be supported by reasonably acceptable material showing the appellant's direct or indirect participation. On the evidence of the El Dorado share purchase and the MALCO funding arrangement, it found the regulator had not proved that the appellant funded, directed, or used those transactions to manipulate prices. The alleged links with the Damayanti Group and Harshad Mehta were also not established, and the market-access bar and proposed prosecution were not sustainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196566