https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788500 Promoter-group classification under the ICDR Regulations was ined by statutory definitions, shareholding links, connected fund movements and surrounding circumstances, leading to a finding that Stuti, Siwana and Vital formed part of the promoter group; on that basis, Riddhi Siddhi was held not to have met minimum public shareholding norms. In the second issue, the trading pattern, low liquidity, inter se trades among connected persons and timing around the delisting exercise supported an inference of fraudulent trading to project the scrip as liquid, assessed on preponderance of probability. The regulatory findings were substantially sustained, while debarment was moderated for some appellants. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788500 Promoter-group classification under the ICDR Regulations was ined by statutory definitions, shareholding links, connected fund movements and surrounding circumstances, leading to a finding that Stuti, Siwana and Vital formed part of the promoter group; on that basis, Riddhi Siddhi was held not to have met minimum public shareholding norms. In the second issue, the trading pattern, low liquidity, inter se trades among connected persons and timing around the delisting exercise supported an inference of fraudulent trading to project the scrip as liquid, assessed on preponderance of probability. The regulatory findings were substantially sustained, while debarment was moderated for some appellants. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788500