9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deceased noticees were exonerated from the charges and only charge remained for trading of the appellants and deceased noticees for a period from December 17 to 22, 2008. The trading of period of December 16 is also taken into consideration by the WTM. However, finding that there was sudden increase in purchase of the shares of PSTL by the appellants and the deceased noticees during December 17-19, 2008 as detailed and off-loading of all those shares on December 22 before 10:30 am the order was passed. It is an admitted fact that Nirmal Kotecha had close relations with the appellants. Many business transactions as well as gratuitous transactions of advancing interest free loan between them is an admitted fact. Out of interest free loan granted by Nirmal Kotecha to the appellants, admittedly appellants utilized some portion for the business purpose. Admittedly, they always had telephonic conversation. Admittedly, the appellants form a family group as further explained in the paragraph 1 of the synopsis itself. The appellants had pleaded before the WTM that the proceedings against them be kept in abeyance till the proceedings against Nirmal Kotecha would come to an end i.e. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember 19, 2008 SEBI had issued a direction to Mr. P.S. Saminathan, one of the promoters of PSTL to make an open offer for violating creeping acquisition norms, at a price not less than ₹ 250/- per share of PSTL. In the circumstances, when the stock markets opened on Monday morning i.e. on December 22, 2008 the prices of the shares of PSTL rose. At around 10:30 am the same day i.e. December 22, 2008, however, Mr. Saminathan informed Bombay Stock Exchange Limited ( BSE for convenience) and National Stock Exchange limited ( NSE for convenience) that no such order or letter has been received by him. During the investigation of SEBI it was found that said Nirmal Kotecha along with 20 other entities was also involved in the manipulation in the prices of PSTL even for a period preceding the publication of the news items. Out of those 20 entities present proceedings was against the 11 entities named as Shah Group Entities. The present appellants challenged the prohibitory order before this Tribunal vide Appeal No. 132 of 2017 decided on June 30, 2017. This Tribunal disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the respondent SEBI to pass final order within a period of 6 months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,336 3. NIRMAL ROHITBHAI SHAH 24,723 4. DEVANG R SHAH 30,044 5. RITABEN ROHITKUMAR SHAH 22,000 6. JAYANTILAL RATILAL SHAH 5,000 7. BINABEN SHAILESHKUMAR SHAH 10,002 8. NAMITABEN SACHINKUMAR SHAH 3,500 9. SACHIN JAYANTILAL SHAH 10,000 10. MANISHABEN RAJESHKUMAR SHAH 5,000 11. JINNY NIRMAL SHAH 2,500 Total 1,70,321 All these shares along with additional 200 shares were sold by the appellants on December 22, 2008. According to respondent SEBI the appellants along with deceased noticees had made wrongful gain of ₹ 24,39,602.91 from these transactions in the following manner:- Sr. No. Name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublication some forged letter. They were regularly buying and selling the shares of PSTL and therefore they should be exonerated from the charges. 6. The WTM however found that while earlier the appellants have traded in the scrip of PSTL in miniscule quantity or on December 16, 2008 on day trading basis, particularly from December 17 to 19, 2008 they had accumulated large amount of shares as detailed (supra). Further, taking into consideration the fact that Nirmal Kotecha was in regular contact with the members of present Shah family and more particularly the trading pattern of the appellants to accumulate the shares before December 22, 2008 and off-load the same on December 22, 2008 at 10.30 am, WTM held that it would clearly show that the present appellants along with the deceased noticees had in violation of Regulation 11 of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ( PFUTP Regulations for convenience) made the wrongful gain. Hence the order. We have heard Shri R. S. Loona, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd only charge remained for trading of the appellants and deceased noticees for a period from December 17 to 22, 2008. The trading of period of December 16 is also taken into consideration by the WTM. However, finding that there was sudden increase in purchase of the shares of PSTL by the appellants and the deceased noticees during December 17-19, 2008 as detailed (supra) and off-loading of all those shares on December 22 before 10:30 am as detailed (supra), the order was passed. 10. It is an admitted fact that Nirmal Kotecha had close relations with the appellants. Many business transactions as well as gratuitous transactions of advancing interest free loan between them is an admitted fact. Out of interest free loan granted by Nirmal Kotecha to the appellants, admittedly appellants utilized some portion for the business purpose. Admittedly, they always had telephonic conversation. Admittedly, the appellants form a family group as further explained in the paragraph 1 of the synopsis itself. The appellants had pleaded before the WTM that the proceedings against them be kept in abeyance till the proceedings against Nirmal Kotecha would come to an end i.e. appeal filed by Nirmal Ko ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
