9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material evidence on record and came to a conclusion that the price payable to the stock exchange pursuant to the default committed by the appellant's client in the delivery of shares was not recovered by the appellant from its client leads to an irresistible inference that the appellant was itself dealing in the illiquid scrip in order to create artificial volume and market price for vested gain. It has come on record that during the period when the appellant's alleged client sold 120 shares the price rose from ₹ 4,351/- per share to ₹ 4,438/- per share. AO was thus, of the opinion that creating artificial volumes and increase in the price scrip was violative of Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acs instead of imposing a maximum penalty. - Appeal No. 134 Of 2018 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2019 - Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member And M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member B.M. Chatterji, Sr. Adv. for the Appellant. Vishal Kanade, Adv. and Anubhav Ghosh, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER Tarun Agarwala, The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'AO') of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as, 'SEBI') imposing a penalty of ₹ 15 lacs for violation of the provisions of Regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Prac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuineness of the client also became doubtful as during the investigation, the client could not be traced. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. We find that the appellant is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. During the investigation, the appellant did not furnish the requisite information to the investigation team. Further, no reply was filed by the appellant pursuant to the show cause notice. Inspite of service of the summons, the appellant failed to appear nor filed any reply to defend himself even though ample opportunity of personal hearing was given. 5. Thus, we are of the opinion that the charge levelled against the appellant remained unreburted. Further, we find that the AO considered the material e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such documents cannot be entertained nor can it be considered by the Tribunal. 7. It was urged that the penalty imposed was excessive and not inconformity with the misconduct. It was also urged that the factors available under Section 15J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, 'SEBI Act') has not been taken into consideration. In this regard, we find that the AO has considered the factors under Section 15J of the SEBI Act and has held that the material available on record is insufficient to quantify the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made by the appellant or the loss suffered by the investors as a result of the acts done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
