9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the imposition of a monetary penalty under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, based on an enquiry conducted under Rule 5 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995. The key issues revolve around alleged trading irregularities, including synchronized trading, in the equity shares of a company during a specific investigation period. Details of the Judgment: 1. The appellant challenged the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakh under section 15HA of the Act. The investigation period spanned eight months, during which the appellant traded for a short period, contributing 0.89 percent to the total traded volume. 2. The respondent alleged that the appellant, along with a group of clients and brokers, traded significantly in the company's shares on multiple days. The appellant was accused of being involved in synchronized trading, leading to the creation of trading volumes. 3. The appellant denied collusion with other parties, emphasizing that the trading volume was minimal and without any proven nexus. He also raised concerns about the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which impacted the availability of relevant documents. 4. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and found no conclusive proof of the appellant's involvement in manipulating the market equilibrium through synchronized trading. The appellant's trading activity, though minor, did not establish a violation of relevant regulations. 5. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments to highlight that synchronized trading, in itself, is not illegal unless it aims to manipulate the market or create false volumes. Without concrete evidence linking the appellant to such activities, the penalty imposed could not be sustained. 6. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that synchronization of trades is not inherently illegal and must involve a mischievous intent among parties to be objectionable. Lack of clear evidence of connivance led to the quashing of the impugned order. 7. The judgment reiterated that synchronized trading, without evidence of wrongdoing, does not constitute a violation. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with no costs imposed. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
