<?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>2021 (7) TMI 1433 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310569</link>
    <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai allowed appeals challenging debarment orders related to a fraudulent GDR issue. The case involved misleading information to shareholders about GDR subscription and undisclosed fraudulent loan arrangements through pledge agreements. The Tribunal held that mere presence during board resolution passage cannot establish knowledge of fraudulent intent or manipulation. The finding that board resolution authorized pledge agreements was deemed erroneous and unsupported by evidence. The resolution did not indicate appellants&#039; prior knowledge of price manipulation or fraud against shareholders and investors. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of both the AO and WTM regarding the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:08:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 1433 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310569</link>
      <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai allowed appeals challenging debarment orders related to a fraudulent GDR issue. The case involved misleading information to shareholders about GDR subscription and undisclosed fraudulent loan arrangements through pledge agreements. The Tribunal held that mere presence during board resolution passage cannot establish knowledge of fraudulent intent or manipulation. The finding that board resolution authorized pledge agreements was deemed erroneous and unsupported by evidence. The resolution did not indicate appellants&#039; prior knowledge of price manipulation or fraud against shareholders and investors. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of both the AO and WTM regarding the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>