<?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 1330 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355909</link>
    <description>A misleading corporate announcement treated as price-sensitive, followed by a rise in price and volume and unsupported by the promised board meeting, was held to show fraudulent and unfair trade practices where the surrounding share transfers indicated market manipulation. Acquisition of shares beyond the statutory threshold without a public announcement or open offer was also upheld as a takeover violation, and the related disclosure failures under the takeover and insider trading framework were confirmed. The aggregate penalty was found neither excessive nor disproportionate because the adjudicating authority had already applied mitigating factors and the appellant played a central role in the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:28:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1330 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355909</link>
      <description>A misleading corporate announcement treated as price-sensitive, followed by a rise in price and volume and unsupported by the promised board meeting, was held to show fraudulent and unfair trade practices where the surrounding share transfers indicated market manipulation. Acquisition of shares beyond the statutory threshold without a public announcement or open offer was also upheld as a takeover violation, and the related disclosure failures under the takeover and insider trading framework were confirmed. The aggregate penalty was found neither excessive nor disproportionate because the adjudicating authority had already applied mitigating factors and the appellant played a central role in the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>