9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity was grossly negligent and allowed fraudulent transactions to be carried out by Purshottam Khandelwal and two other violations already noted above. Considering all these facts, in our view, the order of the WTM of SEBI directing the suspension of the license of the appellant for a period of three months needs to be set aside and in its place it is hereby directed that the appellant shall not accept any fresh clients for a period of six months from the date of this order. - Misc. Application no. 179 of 2017, Appeal No. 127 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2019 - Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer And Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member, M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Prakash Shah, Chinmay Paradkar and Meit Shah, Advs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... significant variation to the Last Traded Price ( LTP for convenience) in order to manipulate price of the same. The investigation shows that while pre-investigation period the price of Gangotri was between ₹ 52.25 to ₹ 40.55, during the above investigation period it arose to ₹ 70.95 on BSE platform and ₹ 71.05 on NSE platform. The average daily volume also increased to phenomenal extent during the said period. Various proceedings were initiated against the members of Vishvas Group as well as their traders. So far as Purshottam Khandelwal is concerned, who has traded through the present applicant, SEBI had already found that he had engaged in the fraudulent trade and therefore a prohibitory order was already pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he enquiry with the PNB revealed that the aforesaid account was opened by Purshottam Khandelwal on July 13, 2006 and the same was not operative at the relevant period i.e. on March 31, 2006. 4. Another violation was found that while the contract notes are to be issued to the client according to the regulations within 24 hours of a trade, the appellant had not delivered the contract notes to Purshottam Khandelwal within the same period. Therefore, on these three grounds the impugned order was passed. 5. Shri Prakash Shah, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the reply of the appellant to the show cause notice, the copies of the various judgements delivered by WTM in this regard against other members of alleged group, tradi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des executed by Purshottam Khandelwal during the short period to such a large extent could not have gone un-noticed by the present appellant. Large number of self trades i.e. 711 in 65,025 shares are rightly been held as abnormally large by WTM. It was further highlighted by WTM that within the 24 days large number of synchronized trades as detailed above were entered into by Purshottam Khandelwal through the appellant. 8. In paragraph number 19 of the impugned order the WTM has observed that the present case goes beyond the realm of lack of due diligence, and quite clearly is an instance of aiding the commission of fraudulent and manipulative trades. Considering the nature of the transactions, we agree with the said observations. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prohibited from accepting any fresh clients for a period of six months. As regards the Mefcom Securities Limited (Mefcom) (order dated May 05, 2017 Exhibit-M ), another trader involved in the same violation, designated authority had recommended suspension of certificate of registration as a stock broker for a period of four months. WTM however, noted that the period of ten years had elapsed from the date of violation and though the large number of transactions in question were carried out by trader Mefcom, it was directed that said entity shall be prohibited from the accepting fresh clients, for a period of four months from the date of the order. 10. In the present case, there are no allegations that the appellant had indulged in propri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
