<?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>2022 (7) TMI 1477 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310544</link>
    <description>Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai allowed appeals against WTM orders debarring appellant from securities market for five years and imposing Rs. 5 lakh penalty for SEBI Act violations related to fraudulent GDR issuance. Tribunal held that merely participating as Independent Director in board resolution authorizing bank account opening for GDR subscription money did not make appellant part of fraudulent scheme. No evidence showed appellant&#039;s involvement in subsequent pledge agreement or awareness of loan arrangements that made the scheme fraudulent. Appellant&#039;s assertion of non-involvement in day-to-day management was undisputed. Restraint order and penalty quashed due to insufficient evidence of participation in fraudulent activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:38:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 1477 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310544</link>
      <description>Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai allowed appeals against WTM orders debarring appellant from securities market for five years and imposing Rs. 5 lakh penalty for SEBI Act violations related to fraudulent GDR issuance. Tribunal held that merely participating as Independent Director in board resolution authorizing bank account opening for GDR subscription money did not make appellant part of fraudulent scheme. No evidence showed appellant&#039;s involvement in subsequent pledge agreement or awareness of loan arrangements that made the scheme fraudulent. Appellant&#039;s assertion of non-involvement in day-to-day management was undisputed. Restraint order and penalty quashed due to insufficient evidence of participation in fraudulent activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>