<?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>2018 (2) TMI 580 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355159</link>
    <description>The SC upheld SEBI&#039;s action against traders engaged in synchronized trading in derivatives segment, finding violations of PFUTP Regulations 3(a), 4(1), and 4(2)(a). The court determined that intentional trading for loss through preplanned rapid reverse trades constitutes unfair trade practice, as it excludes other investors and manipulates market prices. The traders&#039; orchestrated transactions with no intention of transferring beneficial ownership violated transparent trading norms. However, the SC dismissed SEBI&#039;s appeal against brokers, finding insufficient evidence of negligence or connivance. The court emphasized that merely facilitating transactions doesn&#039;t constitute regulatory violation without proof of aiding fraudulent practices. The Securities Appellate Tribunal&#039;s orders were set aside regarding traders but upheld for brokers. The judgment stressed the need for comprehensive legal frameworks to address evolving market manipulation methods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 580 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355159</link>
      <description>The SC upheld SEBI&#039;s action against traders engaged in synchronized trading in derivatives segment, finding violations of PFUTP Regulations 3(a), 4(1), and 4(2)(a). The court determined that intentional trading for loss through preplanned rapid reverse trades constitutes unfair trade practice, as it excludes other investors and manipulates market prices. The traders&#039; orchestrated transactions with no intention of transferring beneficial ownership violated transparent trading norms. However, the SC dismissed SEBI&#039;s appeal against brokers, finding insufficient evidence of negligence or connivance. The court emphasized that merely facilitating transactions doesn&#039;t constitute regulatory violation without proof of aiding fraudulent practices. The Securities Appellate Tribunal&#039;s orders were set aside regarding traders but upheld for brokers. The judgment stressed the need for comprehensive legal frameworks to address evolving market manipulation methods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>