https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281153 Purchase orders placed above the last traded price did not, by themselves, establish artificial price manipulation under the fraudulent and unfair trade practices regime. The decisive requirement was proof of collusion or a nexus between the buyer, the seller and any counterparty so that the trades could be treated as non-genuine rather than genuine market transactions. On the recorded facts, that link was not established, and the normal screen-based price discovery process, including demand and supply, price-time priority and circuit limits, explained the pricing pattern. The charge of artificially raising the scrip price was therefore not made out, and the penalty order could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281153 Purchase orders placed above the last traded price did not, by themselves, establish artificial price manipulation under the fraudulent and unfair trade practices regime. The decisive requirement was proof of collusion or a nexus between the buyer, the seller and any counterparty so that the trades could be treated as non-genuine rather than genuine market transactions. On the recorded facts, that link was not established, and the normal screen-based price discovery process, including demand and supply, price-time priority and circuit limits, explained the pricing pattern. The charge of artificially raising the scrip price was therefore not made out, and the penalty order could not be sustained. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281153