9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that there is no connection of the appellants therein either with the company or with the group connected with the company it was found that merely irrational behaviour of the investor, for want of connection, it cannot be said that they were trading in manipulative or fraudulent manner Finding that the scrip of Mapro was not a miracle scrip and taking into consideration the doubtful pattern of the trades carried out by the appellant therein this Tribunal though set aside the direction to pay penalty imposed upon the appellant therein, it was held that warning to the appellant that repetition of trading of similar nature as impugned one will lead to penal consequences. All the appellants are small investors. They are admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appellant no. 3 Satyendra while appellant no. 2 is the younger brother of appellant no. 3. The record would show that respondent SEBI had conducted investigation in the scrip of Mapro Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mapro/Company) for a period between November 20, 2013 to June 30, 2014. It was found in the investigation that during the investigation period the prices of the shares of Mapro had moved from 13.41 to ₹ 77.60. There was considerable volume movement also. Therefore number of entities were found to have been involved in artificially raising of the prices of the shares of Mapro. Notices were issued to the nine entities including the present appellants. 3. So far as the present appellants are concerned their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other appellants) had engaged in 87 trades selling 98 shares. The trades of all those five noticees resulted in increase in Last Traded Price (LTP) of ₹ 60.9. So far as appellant Jyoti Jha is concerned she is alleged to have contributed ₹ 15.99. As regards other appellants similar pattern was found. Since these appellants are connected to each other and since all of them had replied that appellant no. 3 had traded on behalf of other appellants, the adjudicating officer concluded that these being artificial trades, manipulative trading was done. The appellants however submitted that they had purchased shares of Mapro on the advice of a friend on good faith which were later on sold only to earn small profit as a small investo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he scrip could be placing orders in the system without any intention to manipulate the market. Finding that there is no connection of the appellants therein either with the company or with the group connected with the company it was found that merely irrational behaviour of the investor, for want of connection, it cannot be said that they were trading in manipulative or fraudulent manner. However, finding that the scrip of Mapro was not a miracle scrip and taking into consideration the doubtful pattern of the trades carried out by the appellant therein this Tribunal though set aside the direction to pay penalty imposed upon the appellant therein, it was held that warning to the appellant that repetition of trading of similar nature as impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
