9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Adjudicating Officer in this regard therefore cannot be faulted with. As regards the violation of the PIT Regulations it is an admitted fact that the said regulation has been violated though for small quantity of shares. The Adjudicating Officer has taken note of this and therefore the penalty of ₹ 3 lakhs on this count was imposed. Considering all these facts on record we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. - Misc. Application No.412 of 2018 And Misc. Application No.413 of 2018 And Appeal No.76 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2019 - Mr Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer, Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member And Mr M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member For The Appellants : Mr. Paras Parekh, Advocate with Mr. Robin Shah, Ms. Ankita Roy and Mr. Ashish Venugopal, Advocates i/b. Parinam Law Associates And Mr. Anant Upadhyay, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh and Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocates i/b. The Law Point JUDGEMENT Per : Justice M.T. Joshi 1. The present appellants have suffered penalties ranging from ₹ 3 lakhs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. V. Rajashekharan was the Executive Director of very same TCP of which the appellant Mr. V.R. Venkatachalam was the promoter. Appellant Srivatsan P was alleged to be in collusion with the other appellants though he was not related with any of them. During investigation this appellant stated that he knew some of the friends of appellant Mr. V.R. Venkatachalam. 3. Appellant Mr. V. Rajashekharan, the Executive Director of TCP in his reply before the respondent SEBI submitted that he has for himself and on behalf his wife Mrs. Rajashekharan Devaki had bought 8 shares and sold 7 shares during the relevant period. According to them it would be irrational that the trade in such miniscule percentage would in any way affect the price movement in the scrip. They have not traded with appellant Mr. V.R. Vekatachalam, the promoter of TCP but with other persons. They further put a query that if the price of the shares was brought down at the lowest price by ₹ 201/- by them in September, 2013 appellant Mr. V.R. Venkatachalam would not have purchased the shares at the price between ₹ 321.95/- and ₹ 302.70/- per share in August, 2013. 4. Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Devaki had placed sell order for the same price. This orders matched with each other. No other trade was at all there on that day. On 13th August, 2013 Smt. Rajasekharan Devaki placed a sell order for one share for a price of ₹ 389.90 at 11:30:22 when the LTP was ₹ 410.42/-. Appellant Srivatsan at 11:32:30 placed buy order at the same rate for one share and thus the sell and buy orders were matched bringing down the price of the share. Other instances of 14th August, 2013, 16th August, 2013, 19th August, 2013 and 21st August, 2013 are quoted by the Adjudicating Officer. 7. The Adjudicating Officer calculated that appellant Mr. V.R. Venkatachalam was benefited to the extent of ₹ 13 crores being able to buy share of TCP at reduced prices owing to the trading of three other appellants as detailed supra. 8. The argument of the appellant Mr. V.R. Venkatachalam that he could have waited for another two weeks to buy the shares at the lowest price at ₹ 201/- was not accepted by the Adjudicating Officer by observing that the prior reduced price had benefited the appellant by ₹ 13/- crore. 9. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hased the shares. He submitted that had there been any intention in depressing the prices of the shares in collusion with other parties the appellant would have waited as per the plan for two weeks to purchase the shares at more reduced price. As regards the breach of Model Code of Conduct the learned counsel submitted that some bonafide mistake is committed by Mr. V. R. Venkatachalam for not seeking permission for purchasing miniscule shares as detailed by the Adjudicating Officer in the order and hence he wanted that the order be set aside. 12. Mr. Paras Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. V. Rajasekharan while supporting the above argument submitted that trade logs and order logs on which the allegations were leveled were not provided to these appellants. Only during the pendency of the present appeal upon making a specific request the same is provided to them by the respondent on 30th April, 2018. The trade logs would show that during the relevant period there were many orders pending in the system placed by third parties which did not match. Merely because the order of the appellants matched with the order of another appellant Srivatsan the same c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible in law. 17. Learned counsel for Mr. V. Rajasekharan and Smt. Rajasekharan Devaki, Mr. Paras Parekh submitted that even after stopping of trade by this appellant the price fell further. Not only the appellant but three others had traded as can be seen from the trade logs. The trade volume of these persons also was very miniscule which would have caused no effect on the price of this illiquid share. The learned counsel Mr. Anant Upadhyay for appellant Srivatsan submitted that merely because the appellant during enquiry told that he knew few friends of Mr. Venkatachalam he was roped in. He had no connection with other appellants. The record would show that the appellant was a jobber and used to do intraday trading in other shares also. 18. Upon hearing both sides in our view the trading pattern of the parties except Mr. R. Venkatachalam would show that these parties entered into buy and sell order of the shares in miniscule proportion for a price much lower than LTP on the given date within seconds to three minutes. Further, within seconds or minutes their orders matched. Three other persons had transacted only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
