https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392424 Proved violations of disclosure requirements under insider trading and takeover regulations were treated as established, but the tribunal considered whether monetary penalty was justified in light of mitigating facts. It noted the transaction history, the company's defunct status, absence of trading activity, the appellant's advanced age, and material showing the shares were taken for debt recovery, together with one disclosure of disposal already made. On those facts, the regulatory breach remained, but the penalty was set aside and the appellant was warned against repeating similar violations. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:16:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392424 Proved violations of disclosure requirements under insider trading and takeover regulations were treated as established, but the tribunal considered whether monetary penalty was justified in light of mitigating facts. It noted the transaction history, the company's defunct status, absence of trading activity, the appellant's advanced age, and material showing the shares were taken for debt recovery, together with one disclosure of disposal already made. On those facts, the regulatory breach remained, but the penalty was set aside and the appellant was warned against repeating similar violations. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392424