https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464713 Name-lending for a preferential allotment was treated as a fraudulent securities market practice where the appellant personally signed the application and the arrangement formed part of a wider scheme to route funds through front entities and seek control of the company. The regulatory violation was sustained even though the allotment did not ultimately materialise. On sanction, the restraint from accessing the securities market was held disproportionate because the appellant's role was limited, the issue never fructified into a listed allotment, and delay in the proceedings was relevant. The one-year restraint was therefore reduced to two months. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:04:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464713 Name-lending for a preferential allotment was treated as a fraudulent securities market practice where the appellant personally signed the application and the arrangement formed part of a wider scheme to route funds through front entities and seek control of the company. The regulatory violation was sustained even though the allotment did not ultimately materialise. On sanction, the restraint from accessing the securities market was held disproportionate because the appellant's role was limited, the issue never fructified into a listed allotment, and delay in the proceedings was relevant. The one-year restraint was therefore reduced to two months. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464713