9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Professional misconduct u/s 11(4) and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. 2. Violation of Regulations 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), and 5 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. 3. Violation of Regulation 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992. Summary: Issue 1: Professional Misconduct The Tribunal did not concern itself with the charge of professional misconduct against Arora in this appeal. Issue 2: Violation of FUTP Regulations The Board alleged that Arora compromised the interests of Indian unit holders to benefit ACM by manipulating trades in mid-cap companies with low floating stock. The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the charge of entering into transactions with the intention of artificially affecting prices or creating a false or misleading appearance of trading. The Tribunal concluded that there was nothing artificial or non-genuine in the transactions cited, and there was a transfer of beneficial ownership in each transaction. Issue 3: Violation of Insider Trading Regulations Arora was accused of insider trading by selling DGL shares while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information. The Tribunal found that the information Arora allegedly accessed did not turn out to be correct, as the merger was not announced on the expected date. The Tribunal held that the sale of securities was based on Arora's analysis of publicly available information, and there was no independent evidence to support the charge of insider trading. Vicarious Liability of Appellants The appellants were held vicariously liable for Arora's acts. However, since Arora was absolved of all charges by the Tribunal, the appellants could not be held vicariously liable. The Tribunal emphasized that a master can only be held liable if the servant is liable. As Arora was exonerated, the appellants were also not liable. Judicial Discipline The Tribunal stressed the importance of judicial discipline, stating that a coordinate Bench should not take a contrary view from an earlier judgment on the same set of facts. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, emphasizing consistency in the interpretation of law to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Conclusion The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide on the quantification of the penalty. There was no order as to costs.
|
