https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360367 Under the 1992 insider-trading regime, mere status as a director, promoter-relative, or connected person was not enough; liability required material foundational facts showing a reasonable expectation of access to unpublished price sensitive information. The Court also noted that findings could not be sustained where they travelled beyond the show-cause notice or lacked factual support, especially for non-executive directors and family members with only kinship or status-based connections. On the evidence, liability was upheld only where the record showed a real nexus with the fraudulent scheme, including active participation or use of a front vehicle to monetise inflated share values. en-us Mon, 14 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Oct 2018 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360367 Under the 1992 insider-trading regime, mere status as a director, promoter-relative, or connected person was not enough; liability required material foundational facts showing a reasonable expectation of access to unpublished price sensitive information. The Court also noted that findings could not be sustained where they travelled beyond the show-cause notice or lacked factual support, especially for non-executive directors and family members with only kinship or status-based connections. On the evidence, liability was upheld only where the record showed a real nexus with the fraudulent scheme, including active participation or use of a front vehicle to monetise inflated share values. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 14 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360367