https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781402 AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found the lead manager implicated only in the first-stage fraud involving GDR subscription, held disgorgement against the appellant unsustainable, and set aside the impugned penalty of Rs. 67 crore as excessive given comparative SEBI precedents and the appellant's non-involvement in the second leg of the fraud. The matter was remitted to SEBI to reassess and determine an appropriate penalty consistent with comparable cases; other directions (including market access restrictions) require fresh consideration in light of these findings. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:56:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781402 AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found the lead manager implicated only in the first-stage fraud involving GDR subscription, held disgorgement against the appellant unsustainable, and set aside the impugned penalty of Rs. 67 crore as excessive given comparative SEBI precedents and the appellant's non-involvement in the second leg of the fraud. The matter was remitted to SEBI to reassess and determine an appropriate penalty consistent with comparable cases; other directions (including market access restrictions) require fresh consideration in light of these findings. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781402