https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778512 The AT set aside the penalty, holding that the challenged regulations did not apply where investments were made by subsidiaries rather than the stock exchange itself and no board resolution authorized such investments. The tribunal found no material showing the exchange itself committed the acts or authorized subsidiaries, and emphasized penal provisions must be strictly construed. Consequently, provisions of the 2012 and 2018 SECC Regulations relied upon by the regulator were inapplicable and the impugned order was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 08:30:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778512 The AT set aside the penalty, holding that the challenged regulations did not apply where investments were made by subsidiaries rather than the stock exchange itself and no board resolution authorized such investments. The tribunal found no material showing the exchange itself committed the acts or authorized subsidiaries, and emphasized penal provisions must be strictly construed. Consequently, provisions of the 2012 and 2018 SECC Regulations relied upon by the regulator were inapplicable and the impugned order was unsustainable. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778512