<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1095 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197549</link>
    <description>A regulatory finding cannot be sustained on a basis different from the charge set out in the show cause notice, because the notice must give clear and precise notice of the alleged misconduct and an opportunity to meet it. Synchronized or negotiated trades are not per se illegal; they become actionable only when specific material shows manipulative intent, circular trading, false volume, or similar market abuse. A broker also cannot be fixed with liability on uncharged grounds, including client-code issues not put to notice or trades of clients who were never proceeded against. The penalty order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 18:07:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1095 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197549</link>
      <description>A regulatory finding cannot be sustained on a basis different from the charge set out in the show cause notice, because the notice must give clear and precise notice of the alleged misconduct and an opportunity to meet it. Synchronized or negotiated trades are not per se illegal; they become actionable only when specific material shows manipulative intent, circular trading, false volume, or similar market abuse. A broker also cannot be fixed with liability on uncharged grounds, including client-code issues not put to notice or trades of clients who were never proceeded against. The penalty order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>