<?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>2009 (9) TMI 1064 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301905</link>
    <description>The appeal in a case involving an IPO scam under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act resulted in the appellant being restrained from dealing in securities for two years and ordered to disgorge illegal gains of Rs. 72 lacs. The appellant&#039;s claim of being a financier without proper documentation was rejected, with findings of unjust enrichment through cornering shares meant for retail investors. The judgment upheld the disgorgement order as an equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment from unlawful conduct. The appeal was dismissed, and costs of Rs. 1 lac were awarded to the respondent Board due to fraudulent conduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 1064 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301905</link>
      <description>The appeal in a case involving an IPO scam under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act resulted in the appellant being restrained from dealing in securities for two years and ordered to disgorge illegal gains of Rs. 72 lacs. The appellant&#039;s claim of being a financier without proper documentation was rejected, with findings of unjust enrichment through cornering shares meant for retail investors. The judgment upheld the disgorgement order as an equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment from unlawful conduct. The appeal was dismissed, and costs of Rs. 1 lac were awarded to the respondent Board due to fraudulent conduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>