<?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>2000 (8) TMI 1135 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288589</link>
    <description>Fraudulent and unfair trade practice liability under the securities market regulations requires clear, cogent evidence linking the company itself to the prohibited conduct. On the material described, withholding of shares was not proved to the requisite standard, especially where documentary evidence showed despatch of the relevant parcels and the record did not justify rejecting that evidence. The remaining findings pointed to the role of promoters and intermediaries rather than a separate act by the company as a legal entity. In the absence of clinching evidence of the company&#039;s own participation in manipulation or rigging, the debarment could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 1135 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288589</link>
      <description>Fraudulent and unfair trade practice liability under the securities market regulations requires clear, cogent evidence linking the company itself to the prohibited conduct. On the material described, withholding of shares was not proved to the requisite standard, especially where documentary evidence showed despatch of the relevant parcels and the record did not justify rejecting that evidence. The remaining findings pointed to the role of promoters and intermediaries rather than a separate act by the company as a legal entity. In the absence of clinching evidence of the company&#039;s own participation in manipulation or rigging, the debarment could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>