https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792633 Excess derivative positions taken through agents were not treated as fraudulent or manipulative absent independent proof of market manipulation under PFUTP, and the Court held that the higher burden for establishing a fraudulent device was not met. The futures positions were accepted as valid hedges against the proposed sale of RPL shares, since a perfect one-to-one hedge was not legally required. Cornering theory based on a single settlement series was rejected because the 2001 SEBI circular applied position limits across derivative contracts on the underlying stock. The last-minute share sales were not proved to be a deliberate price-depressing scheme, but the disclosure-based breach under the circular was sustained. en-us Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 13:04:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792633 Excess derivative positions taken through agents were not treated as fraudulent or manipulative absent independent proof of market manipulation under PFUTP, and the Court held that the higher burden for establishing a fraudulent device was not met. The futures positions were accepted as valid hedges against the proposed sale of RPL shares, since a perfect one-to-one hedge was not legally required. Cornering theory based on a single settlement series was rejected because the 2001 SEBI circular applied position limits across derivative contracts on the underlying stock. The last-minute share sales were not proved to be a deliberate price-depressing scheme, but the disclosure-based breach under the circular was sustained. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792633