9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant: Mr. J.J. Bhatt, Advocate with Ms. Rinku Valanju, Advocate i/b. R.V. Legal For the Respondent: Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shah and Mr. Ahbhiraj Arora, Advocates i/b.ELP ORDER Tarun Agarwala, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 12th February, 2019 passed by the Whole Time Member restraining the appellant fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Whole Time Member further found that selling miniscule shares indicates that the appellant was not a genuine trader. The Whole Time Member took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in SEBI vs. Kishore R. Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 holding that the trading pattern of the appellant created a misleading appearance which amounted to manipulation in the price of the scrip and were therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med that the said buyer did not purchase it from the appellant. Thus, there is no connection between the appellant as a seller with any buyer. In the absence of element of collusion between the buyer and the seller the charge cannot be established. 6. Consequently, for the reasons stated in Appeal no.97 of 2019, Nishith M. Shah HUF vs. SEBI decided on 16th January, 2020 the impugned order ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
