9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI Act) for violation of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) and (d); 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (g) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as PFUTP Regulations). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondent conducted an investigation in respect of the trading activity of Appellant no.1 along with Appellant no.2 and a few others in the scrip of Shree Global Tradefin Ltd., (for short "SGTL") with a view to examine possible violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations framed thereunder. 3. The investigation pointed out that the scrip had opened at Rs. 325 on Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecuting synchronized trades and self trades which allegedly created false and misleading appearance of trading in the shares of SGTL. 6. Despite service of show cause notice dated April 20, 2012 the Appellants did not file any reply before the learned AO. In the interest of justice and as per the provisions contained in the Adjudication Rules, 1995, the learned AO vide his letter dated August 13, 2012 granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellants to be held on August 22, 2012. The Appellants did not avail of the said opportunity. The learned AO proceeded ex-parte against the Appellants and passed the impugned order. 7. It was found that the Appellants dealt in the scrip of SGTL along with other entities of the Krupa Soni G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he charge of violation of the PFUTP Regulations. This Tribunal has taken a consistent view that a few instances of self trades in themselves would not, ipso facto, amount to an objectionable trades. However, in the case in hand a number of shares have been dealt with by executing self trades, albeit, through several brokers. Details in this regard have been supplied by the learned AO in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned order. Both the Appellants have executed such self trades through various brokers at least on many occasions during the period in question. 10. In addition to the above said, it is noted from the pleadings that there was trading of some shares in a synchronized manner. There was no difference in the buy and sell orders, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all been examined by the learned AO. The learned counsel submits that each party's trades etc must have been considered to find out their role and then only the specific role played by the two appellants could have been spelt out and evaluated in the proper perspective. Therefore, the blame of "group volume" cannot be thrust upon and attributed to the appellants. It is further contended that different parties of the alleged group have handled their respective trading accounts through separate brokers and also met their settlement obligations directly without involvement of appellants. The Appellants have not advanced any fund to the members of alleged group. There is no piece of evidence on record to prove that the appellants "controlle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
