<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1660 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304392</link>
    <description>Termination of the shareholders&#039; agreements was treated as price sensitive information because it was a material corporate development likely to affect GIPL&#039;s securities price. The note states that Shri Abhijit Rajan, as CMD and attendee at the board meeting, was an insider who traded while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information before disclosure, and his explanation of commercial necessity did not negate liability; disgorgement was ordered against him. It further states that the charge of insider trading against CICPL and its directors was not established on the material available, so the escrow amount attributable to them was released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:17:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1660 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304392</link>
      <description>Termination of the shareholders&#039; agreements was treated as price sensitive information because it was a material corporate development likely to affect GIPL&#039;s securities price. The note states that Shri Abhijit Rajan, as CMD and attendee at the board meeting, was an insider who traded while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information before disclosure, and his explanation of commercial necessity did not negate liability; disgorgement was ordered against him. It further states that the charge of insider trading against CICPL and its directors was not established on the material available, so the escrow amount attributable to them was released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>