9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The penalty was imposed since the adjudicating officer came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of violating the provisions of regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as FUTP Regulation). 2. The Board conducted investigations in the affairs, trading and dealings in the shares of the company during the period November 21, 2008 to June 8, 2009. Investigations revealed that the appellant had traded in the scrip of the company by placing buy orders at prices significantly above the last traded price and thereby artificially propped u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connivance with the counter party or promoter stands established and 19 trades in 46 shares is a miniscule portion of total trades and the penalty of ₹ 2 lacs is highly excessive. With a pointed reference to paragraph 20 of the impugned order, it was submitted that one of the counter parties, Shri Sanjeev Khare, whose transactions with the appellant are highlighted, has not been punished for any wrong doing. The appellant s learned counsel would also make a pertinent reference to the adjudication order in the case of Mr. Ravindra Singhai. According to him, a penalty of ₹ 1,50,000 only has been imposed on Mr. Ravindra Singhai even though his contribution to creation of artificial volume and inflation of the value of shares was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected entities to the price rise. The adjudication order consists of a chart showing the contribution of each of the entities and this stands undisputed. According to the chart which appears in paragraph 10(V) of the adjudication order maximum manipulation was done by Mr. Ravindra Singhai whose contribution to the new high price has been worked out at ₹ 181.35. The second in line is the appellant whose contribution has been worked out at ₹ 114.45. The modus operandi adopted by Mr. Ravindra Singhai and the appellant appear to be identical. Both have placed buy orders significantly above the last traded price. Both have transacted in minimum number of shares on each day, very often transacting in one share per day. Both have indul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
