9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants. In view of this finding in paragraph 25 of the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be duly met by reducing the penalty to ₹ 10 lakh on each of the two Appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided partly in favour of appellants. - Appeal No.32 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2014 - J.P. Devadhar and Jog Singh, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. J.J. Bhatt, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju and Mr. Nimit Gandhi, Advocates For The Respondent : Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mihir Mody, Advocate Per : Jog Singh 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the two Appellants challenging the impugned order dated September 14, 2012 passed by the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the group stated to include consisted of J M Soni Consultancy, Shri Paresh Chauhan, Shri Krunal Rana, Shri Dharmendra Soni, Shri Dilipkumar Soni, Shri Jayeshkumar Soni, Shri Janakray Soni, Shri Dharmesh Soni, Shri Bhargav Patel, Shri Bhargav Vyas, Shri Kalpesh Chauhan, Shri Ashlesh Shah and Shri Dhiren Kumar Agarwal. 5. After the investigation was over, the Respondent appointed an Adjudicating Officer (A.O.) under section 15I of the SEBI Act, read with Rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 to enquire and adjudge under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, the alleged violation of various provisions of PFUTP Regulations. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated April 20, 2012 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. On the basis of the said tradings, the learned AO found that during the investigation period the said Group accounted for approximately 42.86% of the total market gross quantity of trades. 9. On perusal of pleadings and hearing the oral submissions, we note that the self trades are fictitious in nature as there is no transfer of actual beneficial ownership of share and because the buyer and seller are the same person. Such trades are injurious to a healthy market and result in the creation of artificial volumes in the scrip. This in turn gives a totally wrong signal to the members of the public who may invest in the hope of making some gains but ultimately land up with losses. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered opinion, is untenable in the facts of the present case. However, in all fairness, we would like to note that Shri J.J. Bhatt has given up this contention during the oral arguments. 12. In the above backdrop and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only question that needs our consideration is whether the penalty of ₹ 30 lacs on each of the Appellants, who happen to be wife and husband, is justified or not. Shri Bhatt has emphatically argued in this regard that the learned adjudicating officer has enlarged the scope of the show cause notice without any authority and deviated from the allegations contained in SCN. Parties who allegedly formed group have totally been spared as no action is taken against any of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as a group along with Appellants. In view of this finding in paragraph 25 of the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be duly met by reducing the penalty to ₹ 10 lakh on each of the two Appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Accordingly, the impugned order in case of each Appellant is upheld with a modification of the penalty to ₹ 10 lac per appellant i.e. in all ₹ 20 lac to be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the Respondent would be at liberty to recover the same with interest by taking appropriate steps as per law. Ordered accordingly. The appeal, thus, stands partly allowed. No costs. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
