SEBI : Learn about the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and its role as a statutory and autonomous body under the SEBI Act. Understand...
SEBI : Article analyse landmark case of V.K. Kaul v. Adjudicating Officer Securities & SEBI. This case was decided on 8th of October 20...
SEBI : Securities Appellate Tribunal is a statutory body established under the provisions of Section 15K of the Securities and Exchange B...
CA, CS, CMA : A local court from Hyderabad on 08.12.2014 convicted Satyam founder B Ramalinga Raju, accused of one of the most sensational corpo...
SEBI : SEBI penalty on Deccan Chronicle's Company Secretary overturned. Tribunal rules Company Secretary not responsible for verifying au...
SEBI : Explore recent SAT verdict in 20 Microns Limited v. BSE Limited case on Regulation 17(1A) of LODR. Learn about implications and a ...
SEBI : Dive into the Shreehas P Tambe vs. SEBI case, exploring insider trading regulations, violations, legalities, and the significant ...
SEBI : Vedanta Limited secures a victory as the Securities Appellate Tribunal overturns SEBI's fine. Details of the Cairn India buyback c...
SEBI : A detailed analysis of SAT Mumbai's decision to reduce SecureKloud Technologies' penalty for non-serious LODR violations, and its ...
Corporate Law : No person is qualified to be appointed as the Presiding Officer- (a) of the Securities Appellate Tribunal established under the Se...
It has been specifically pleaded by the appellant that during the investigation period, i.e. in the year 2002, there was no software available for carrying out long or real time surveillance and it was not possible to carry out surveillance of thousands of transactions of all clients on a daily basis. It has also been pleaded by the appellant that the impugned trades in the scrip of the company were done on behalf of its clients and the intra day trading was the normal/usual pattern of the trading adopted by the said client. The appellant had not entered into any proprietory trades in the scrip.
The first allegation relates to transfer of funds in the bank account of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant has transferred funds from its bank account earmarked in clients trading transactions to the bank account earmarked for its own business operations. In other words, there was no proper segregation of the funds relating to the broker and the client.
When a company having contracts worth Rs.1000 crores pending with it for execution bags a few new projects through the tendering process such information need not necessarily be price sensitive.
Any act, omission or concealment to be a fraud within the meaning of the Regulations need not be committed in a deceitful manner; intention to deceive is not an essential requirement of the definition of fraud as given in the Regulations; even making a false statement without believing it to be true is by itself an act of fraud.
