9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - orders restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market - miniscule shares were being sold by the appellant when there was demand for more shares and the appellant had a substantial holding in that share and thus the motive was to increase the price of the scrip - charge leveled against the appellant is, that it had co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had been prosecuted but we had been further informed 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 - orders restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market cannot be sustained. - Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the appellant is, that it had contributed to the positive last traded price (LTP) as a seller and that the trades made by the appellant were not genuine which resulted in manipulation in the price of the scrip known as Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd. thereby creating misleading appearance of trading in the scrip of the Company. 3. The Whole Time Member held that miniscule shares were b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties we are of the opinion that controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Appeal no.97 of 2019 Nishith M. Shah HUF vs. SEBI decided on 16th January, 2020. 5. In addition to the reasons given in the said judgement, we are of the opinion that against the charge of raising price artificially one has to establish the element of collusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
