<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1599 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462907</link>
    <description>A promoter-director who purchased company shares failed to make the disclosures required to the stock exchange under the Insider Trading Regulations. The non-disclosure default under regulations 13(4), 13(4A) and 13(5) attracted penalty under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, and the matter was treated as identical to a connected appeal involving the same company and compliance breach. The penalty was sustained, with the reasons adopted from the companion matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:56:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1599 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462907</link>
      <description>A promoter-director who purchased company shares failed to make the disclosures required to the stock exchange under the Insider Trading Regulations. The non-disclosure default under regulations 13(4), 13(4A) and 13(5) attracted penalty under section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, and the matter was treated as identical to a connected appeal involving the same company and compliance breach. The penalty was sustained, with the reasons adopted from the companion matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>