<?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>2006 (10) TMI 500 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283410</link>
    <description>An insider is a person who has received or had access to unpublished price sensitive information, and trading while in possession of such information is prohibited. On the facts, the appellant&#039;s recorded statements showed active participation in share transactions, including placing orders, signing cheques and delivery instructions, and knowing how the transactions were executed. The sale occurred before the relevant results were disclosed, and information about the subsidiary&#039;s loss was already price sensitive and available to the connected insider by virtue of his relationship with the company. These circumstances, together with the appellant&#039;s admissions, negatived the claim that she was merely a name lender and supported insider status, so the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Sep 2019 13:17:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 500 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283410</link>
      <description>An insider is a person who has received or had access to unpublished price sensitive information, and trading while in possession of such information is prohibited. On the facts, the appellant&#039;s recorded statements showed active participation in share transactions, including placing orders, signing cheques and delivery instructions, and knowing how the transactions were executed. The sale occurred before the relevant results were disclosed, and information about the subsidiary&#039;s loss was already price sensitive and available to the connected insider by virtue of his relationship with the company. These circumstances, together with the appellant&#039;s admissions, negatived the claim that she was merely a name lender and supported insider status, so the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>