9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (d) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 and Section 12A(a) and 12A(c) of SEBI Act, 1992. The shareholding pattern of Herbertson available on the BSE website for the quarter ending December 31, 2005 that Phipson, McDowell and UBHL were shown as Indian Promoters of Herbertsons holding 53,49,775 shares (56.18%), 4,59,809 shares (4.83%) and 22,46,756 (23.59%), respectively. As Phipson was wholly owned subsidiary of McDowell and Herbertsons was subsidiary of Phipson. Thus, find that all the said companies were belonging to the same group i.e. UB group of which the Noticee was the Chairman. These shares of Herbertsons were partially transferred to Matterhorn through block deals dated February 28, 2006 and March 03, 2006. Post such transfer of shares, Matterhorn Ventures was shown as a Non-Promoter Public Shareholder under sub-section of FIIs in Shareholding Pattern of Herbertsons as on March 31, 2006. As already found entire transaction in the shares of Herbertsons and USL was funded by the Noticee, indirectly, through VNHL by routing funds through overseas bank accounts and therefore, the shareholding of Matterhorn Ventures of 9.98% shares of Herbertsons actually belonged to the promoter c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - The Noticee is hereby restrained from accessing the securities market and further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, for a period of three (3) years from the date of this order. The Noticee is further restrained from associating himself with any listed company or proposed to be listed company, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, for a period of three (3) year from the date of this order. As during the period of restraint, the existing holding of securities including the holding of units of mutual funds of the Noticee shall remain frozen. The obligation of the debarred Noticee, in respect of settlement of securities, if any, purchased or sold in the cash segment of the recognized stock exchange(s), as existing on the date of this Order, can take place irrespective of the restraint /prohibition imposed by this Order only, in respect of pending unsettled transactions, if any. All open positions, if any, of the Noticee debarred in the present Order, in the F O segment of the stock exchanges, are permitted to be squared off, irrespective of the restraint/prohibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (d) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 read with Section 12A(a) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992. Further, by showing the shareholding of Matterhorn Ventures in Shareholding Pattern of Herbertsons under the non-promoter public holding category, the Noticee is alleged to have misrepresented the truth and concealed a material fact known to him in violation of the provisions of Regulation 4(2)(f) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLIES AND PERSONAL HEARING: 4. A Show Cause Notice dated April 13, 2023 ( SCN ) was issued to the Noticee calling upon him to show cause as to why direction(s) under Section 11B(1) read with Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992 should not be issued against him for the alleged violations of provisions of law mentioned above. The said SCN was sent via Air Mail and was duly delivered to the Noticee on his address/es viz. Ladywalk Queen Hoo Lane, Tewin, Welwyn, AL6 OLT, United Kingdom and 18-19 Cornwall Terrace, Regent s Park, London NW1 4QP, Greater London, England. Thereafter, vide letter dated June 15, 2023, the Noticee, while acknowledging receipt of the SCN raised preliminary objections to the proceedings initiated against him vide the said SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by him vide his reply dated June 15, 2023, submitted that the SCN issued in respect of the purported transactions and monetary dealings referred therein, being barred by law of limitation, is non-est, void and cannot be proceeded with. The Noticee further has submitted his concern with regards to SEBI not providing the copies of the bank statements of VNHL and the emails dated May 24, 2007 and May 25, 2007 referred in the SCN and instead SEBI providing for a physical opportunity to inspect the said documents. 6. In order to address the concerns raised with respect to the request of documents, vide email dated March 19, 2024, the Noticee was once again provided with the relevant extract of the bank statements of VNHL and legible copies of emails dated May 24, 2007 and May 25, 2007 referred in the SCN. Further, as the Noticee had not filed any reply to the allegations made against him in the SCN, he was advised to file his reply, if any, within 15 days from the date of the email. Vide email dated March 28, 2024, the Noticee, while acknowledging the receipt of the said documents, once again requested for the entire bank account statements of VNHL instead of the relevant extract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 30, 2016 bearing no. SEBI / HO / CDMRD/DMP/CIR/P/2016/74 issued under Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992 refers to Rule 14 and 15 of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 which mandates that books of accounts and other records and documents be preserved for a period of 2 to 5 years and Regulation 18 of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub- Brokers) Regulations, 1992 mandates preservation of Specified books of accounts and other records for 3 years. 6.3 Even under the Companies Act, 2013, books of accounts, vouchers and Annual Returns filed with the Registrar of Companies are required to be maintained for 8 years where as the Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribes 8 years and Central Excise Act and Service Tax Act prescribes 5 years. 6.4 Therefore, the Noticee submits that he is unable to confirm or verify the veracity and authenticity of the further documents belatedly made available to him by SEBI given that such old records are not available with him nor are they accessible any longer. In view of the same, the Noticee states that he is put to a serious, unfair and inequitable handicap which is violative of all norms of fairness, equity and principles of natural justice. 6.5 The No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rits on or before the scheduled date of hearing. However, I note that the Noticee, despite receipt of the email dated May 31, 2024 granting the last and final opportunity of hearing on June 13, 2024, neither made any submissions on the allegations made in the SCN on merits nor did he attend the hearing on the scheduled date. Instead, he has chosen to raise objection about delay in initiation of the proceedings against him and that hearing is an empty formality. 8. In the instant case, I note that the Noticee has been given ample and sufficient opportunities to file his reply on merits and to defend his case. Three opportunities of hearing were also granted to him on March 14, 2024, May 28, 2024 and June 13, 2024. However, by not availing of the said opportunities the Noticee has voluntarily waived his right to be heard. In this context, it is pertinent to note the observations of the Hon ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tayal Others Vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 68 of 2013 decided on February 11, 2014), wherein, the Tribunal has, inter alia, observed that appellants have neither filed reply to show cause notices issued to them nor availed opportunity of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deceptive devices, insider trading and substantial acquisition of securities or control. 12A . No person shall directly or indirectly (a) use or employ, in connection with the issue, purchase or sale of any securities listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder; (b) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with issue or dealing in securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange; (c) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the issue, dealing in securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder; 11. I note that in order to adjudge the charges in the present case, it is important to understand the scheme / artifice devised by the Noticee as alleged in the SCN to route the funds through FII to the Indian securities market. However, before going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise of the powers conferred under Section 19 read with Section 11 and 11C of the SEBI Act, 1992, an Investigating Authority was appointed to undertake the investigation in the matter. Considering the formalities and approvals required for sharing of information and the regular follow ups, the data / information from FCA - UK was received in multiple tranches in the years 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020. Based on the information provided by FCA UK, further information was sought from other foreign authorities viz. MAS (Singapore), JFSC (Jersey) and FINMA (Switzerland) in the year 2020 and from SEC (USA) in the year 2021. Furthermore, information was sought from UB Group companies (March 2014 onwards), bank accounts of the Noticee and various related entities were analysed to ascertain the fund flow, summonses were issued to the employees of UBS AG, London Bank (July 2014 onwards), statements were recorded, correspondence was done with FSC, Mauritius (in December 2022) and MAS, Singapore (in October 2020), correspondence was made with Deutsche Bank (in the year 2022-23), data was analysed relating to FII Investments, etc. Finally, in 2021, information pertaining to VNHL was obtained from M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue. However, on this ground of delay, the proceedings cannot be quashed for the reasons that we find that an investigation was required to be done beyond the borders of India which took time. (Emphasis supplied) 17. In addition, it is pertinent to further note that upon issuance of the SCN on April 13, 2023 by Air Mail, the sequence of events in the instant case are as under: Date Particulars 15.06.2023 While raising preliminary objections on initiating enforcement proceedings, Noticee sought for certain documents. 26.10.2023 Clarification was given to the Noticee on the documents sought and further, an opportunity to inspect the documents requested was provided. 23.01.2024 As no reply was received from the Noticee, opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee on 14.03.2024 12.03.2024 The Noticee, while reiterating the submissions made vide his reply dated June 15, 2023, requested for the entire bank statements of Venture New Holdings Limited instead of the extract provided in October 2023 and the copies of the emails dated May 24, 2007 and May 25, 2007. 19.03.2024 SEBI email clarifying to the Noticee that the relevant extract and the email copies have already been provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o participate in the said proceedings and disregard to the regulatory proceedings and communications. I find that admittedly, even though the transactions involved in the matter are for the years 2006-07, the fact that material/ documents such as (i) extracts of transactions with Venture New Holdings Limited, (ii) transactions undertaken by Matterhorn Ventures, email dated January 31, 2023 from UBL, (iii) beneficial ownership documents, etc. have been provided to the Noticee based on which the charges have been levelled against the Noticee in the SCN cannot be ignored. I note that the Noticee was also provided with the entire bank account statement of VNHL and emails dated May 24, 2007 and May 25, 2007 between Jaspreet Ahuja, employee of UBS, and the Noticee which have been relied upon in the SCN. In Natwar Singh vs Director of Enforcement and Another (2010) 13 SCC 255 , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the fundamental principle remains that nothing should be used against the person which has not been brought to his notice. If relevant material is not disclosed to a party, there is prima- facie unfairness irrespective of whether the material in question arose before, during or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Opportunity of hearing, an empty formality: 23. I find that the Noticee, vide his letter dated May 28, 2024, while reiterating the objections raised by him in his reply dated June 15, 2023 with respect to initiation of the proceedings against him, stated that the opportunity of hearing provided to him in the instant proceedings is an empty formality to make a show of having allegedly complied with the principles of natural justice. Here, I note that the principles of natural justice are principles followed in order to make a sensible and reasoned decision on a particular issue / charge in hand. These principles did not originate from any divine power, but are the outcome of judicial thinking, as well as the necessity to evolve the norms of fair play. The said principles of justice are procedural in nature and their aim is to ensure delivery of justice to the parties. Adherence to rules of natural justice, as recognised by all courts, is of supreme importance, when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining the issues involved and / or violations of the provisions of law. Rules of natural justice hedge against any blatant discrimination against the rights of individuals. These r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Noticee on June 13, 2024. However, the Noticee, instead of submitting a reply to the SCN on merits and appearing on the scheduled date/s of hearing has chosen to refuse the said opportunities by stating that the same being an empty formality to show compliance with the principles of natural justice. I find that it is well settled law that refusal to participate in an enquiry without a valid reason cannot be pleaded as violation of natural justice at a later stage. 26. Having addressed the preliminary objections and issues raised by the Noticee in his submissions, I would now proceed to deal with the case on merits. 27. I note that the SCN alleges that the Noticee has abused the FII route to trade in the Indian Securities Market by concealing his identity in the names of various overseas registered entities, in whose names the bank accounts were opened with UBS, even though the Noticee allegedly was the actual beneficial owner of each of the front entities in a fraudulent manner by employing manipulative and deceptive artifice by indulging in purchase and sale of securities of Herbertsons / USL detrimental to the investors and with an intent to defraud them. In view of the same, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revealed in the investigation undertaken by SEBI that the Noticee had opened various accounts with UBS in the names of multiple entities of which he was the Beneficial Owner. The fact that the Noticee was the ultimate beneficial owner of the various accounts opened with UBS, London or UBS, Singapore was ascertained from KYC and beneficial ownership documents of the said accounts during the relevant period. Details of the said entities and the account numbers with UBS are as under: (i) Sole Account UV - Highland Trading ( Highland Trading ) (Acc. No. 364567) (ii) Birchwood Hills Inc ( Birchwood ) (Acc. No. 389458) (iii) Suncoast Valley Inc ( Suncoast ) (Acc. No. 389459) (iv) Bayside Enterprise Inc ( Bayside ) (Acc. No. 389460) (v) VNHL (Acc. No. 138154) 32. In order to further examine the transactions in the said accounts, bank account statements of all the above mentioned entities related / associated with the Noticee were analysed. Upon examination of the said bank account statements, certain details pertaining to counterparties to different transactions made in the account of Vijay Mallya and his related entities under various accounts were noticed. The extracts of the bank accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 USD 14,697 369939 F G 36993904 UBS AG LONDON 31/01/2008 USD 1,00,000 364567 U V IA90 36456703 UBS AG LONDN 06/08/2008 USD 1,00,000 364567 U V IA90 36456701 UBS AG LONDN 20/11/2008 USD 10,00,000 CONTINENTAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES 183592 UBS AG SINGAPORE (iii) Account No 389458 (Birchwood Hills Inc) DATE CURREN CY DEBIT AMOUNT CREDIT AMOUNT NAME OF COUNTERPARTY COUNTER PARTY ACC NO COUNTERPART Y BANK NAME 17/01/2006 USD 1,27,824 364567 U V IA90 36456701 UBS AG LONDON 22/02/2006 USD 17,00,040 VENTURE NEW HOLDING LTD 138154 UBS AG SINGAPORE 01/03/2006 USD 3,50,040 VENTURE NEW HOLDING LTD 138154 UBS AG SINGAPORE 08/08/2006 USD 90,000 364567 U V IA90 36456701 UBS AG LONDON 15/09/2006 USD 20,301 UBS FEE 02/10/2006 USD 10,822 UBS TRUSTEES (BAHAMAS) LTD 52017/01.10 UBS BAHAMAS LTD 23/07/2007 USD 20,50,000 VENTURE NEW HLDG LTD NO. 1009156 11381540007 UBS AG SINGAPORE 03/01/2008 USD 15,000 UBS FEE (iv) Account No 389459 (Suncoast Valley Inc) DATE CURREN CY DEBIT AMOUNT CREDIT AMOUNT NAME OF COUNTERPARTY COUNTER PARTY ACC NO COUNTERPARTY BANK NAME 17/01/2006 USD 1,43,570 364567 U V IA90 36456701 UBS AG LONDON 22/02/2006 USD 17,00,040 VENTURE NEW HLDG LTD NO. 1009156 138154 UBS AG SINGAPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it USD 3,50,000 3/14/2006 INCOMING PAYMENT: REDEMPTION IN ZINALROTHORN; DEBIT: 11390140008 CREDIT: 11381540007 Credit USD 1,77,465.70 3/22/2006 OUTGOING PAYMENT: HIGHLAND TRADING; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11003130001 VENTURE NEW HOLDING LTD HIGHLAND TRADING UBS AG LONDON (LONDON BRANCH) Debit USD - 50,000.00 3/1/2007 OUTGOING PAYMENT: HIGHLAND TRADING; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11003130001 VENTURE NEW HOLDING LTD HIGHLAND TRADING UBS AG LONDON (LONDON BRANCH) Debit USD -3,00,000 7/23/2007 OUTGOING PAYMENT: BAYSIDE INC; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11003130001 VENTURE NEW HLDG LTD NO. 1009156 BAYSIDE INC UBS AG LONDON (LONDONBRANCH) Debit USD - 20,50,000 7/23/2007 OUTGOING PAYMENT: BIRCHWOOD HILLS; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11003130001 VENTURE NEW HLDG LTD NO. 1009156 BIRCHWOOD HILLS UBS AG LONDON(LONDON BRANCH) Debit USD - 20,50,000 7/23/2007 OUTGOING PAYMENT: HIGHLAND TRADING; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11003130001 VENTURE NEW HLDG LTD NO. 1009156 HIGHLAND TRADING UBS AG LONDON (LONDON BRANCH) Debit USD - 25,50,000 7/23/2007 OUTGOING PAYMENT: SUNCOAST VALLEY; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11003130001 VENTURE NEW HLDG LTD NO. 1009156 SUNCOAST VALLEY UBS AG LONDON(LONDON BRANCH) Debi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Buy 8,29,900 263.35 21,85,54,165 4.93 Phipson Distillery Ltd Sell 3,73,000 263.35 9,82,29,550 McDowell Co. Ltd Sell 4,56,900 263.35 12,03,24,615 03-Mar-06 Matterhorn Ventures Buy 1,20,100 275 3,30,27,500 0.75 Phipson Distillery Ltd Sell 1,20,100 275 3,30,27,500 Total Buy/Sell 9,50,000 25,15,81,665 5.68 Source: https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot- exchange-rates/usd/USD-to-INR-2006 Conversions in USD are made considering exchange rate for the dates Feb 28, 2006 and Mar 03, 2006 36. Furthermore, from the fund flow in the bank accounts of related / associated entities of the Noticee and the examination during the investigation, I note that the said shares of Herbertson were purchased by Matterhorn immediately on the very next day from the date the funds were transferred by VNHL to Matterhorn. The fund transferred / received to / from Matterhorn Ventures SPC by VNHL is displayed as under: Transaction Booking Date Particulars Credit/ Debit Local Ccy Base Amount (USD) 2/27/2006 OUTGOING PAYMENT: BEING SUBSCRIPTION FOR ZINALROTHORN; DEBIT: 11381540007 CREDIT: 11390140008 ONE OF OUR CLIENT MATTERHORN VENTURES SPC BEING SUBSCRIPTION FOR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net gain after paying back ALL UBS loans (for share acquisition + US property and anything else)? Jaspreet Ahuja Boss that I ll tell you on Tuesday I took only the loans pertaining to the kids into the account. From memory there was a $ 3.4 mn loan on personal account there was an additional loan of $ 1 mn for the US property and there was $ 6.15 minute for the kids. I am using the present sale proceeds to pay down the loans. The stock seems to be finding its levels between 1100 and 1200 which is a very good sign of consolidation. If there is no immediate news driver we could look to sell some more at the 1200 + levels in my view . 41. From the analysis of the above email communication between Jaspreet Ahuja and the Noticee, it is noted that a net gain of $5.51 Million was made by the Noticee from the purchase and sale of the shares of USL. Upon calculating the profits based on the purchase / sale of shares of USL, I find that a profit of $5.69 million was made till the date of the said email communication i.e. May 2007. The table showing the profit calculation is as under: Company Date when the trade was executed and were settled (Please indicate separate date) Type Of Transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Buy' transactions and 'Settled Date' in case of 'Sale' transaction. 3. Buy Value for 408333 shares has been calculated proportionately using Total Cost of 950,000 shares of Herebertsons converted into 633,333 shares of USL (i.e., 5683455/633333 * 408333) 42. The abovementioned details of purchase and sale of shares of USL and the profits made by executing the said trades further substantiates that the email correspondence between the Noticee and the employee of UBS viz. Jaspreet Ahuja dated May 24, 2007 and May 25, 2007 was with respect to the trades in the shares of USL. 43. From the foregoing, I find that the email communication between the Noticee with one of the employees of UBS viz. Jaspreet Ahuja clearly reveals the reference being made to the trades executed in the scrip of USL by using the bank accounts held by the Noticee and his related entities with UBS. The Price volume data for USL as on May 24, 2007 further substantiates the same. I find that, in order to trade in the shares of USL and Herbertson, the Noticee devised a scheme of opening multiple accounts in various names with UBS including the names of Bayside, Suncoast, Birchwood, etc. of whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, whether incorporated or not, on whose behalf investments are proposed to be made in India by a foreign Institutional Investor. Accordingly, FIIs are institutions which are incorporated outside India and which propose to make investments in the Indian securities market on behalf of sub-account, who are also established or incorporated outside India. 46. Further, on perusal of Regulation 15A(1) of the FII Regulations, I find that the said provision states that no FII may issue, or otherwise deal in off shore derivative instruments (ODIs), directly or indirectly, unless such ODIs are issued only to persons who are regulated by an appropriate foreign regulatory authority and such ODIs are issued after compliance with know your client norms. Therefore, the FII Regulations govern only such aspects of the investments made through FIIs which are made only on behalf of sub-accounts who are resident outside India or issue ODIs to persons in a foreign territory who are regulated by an appropriate regulatory authority. Thus, I note that the FII Regulations and the framework around it were made for orderly channelization of foreign investments into India. Therefore, the FII Regulations are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patel (supra) , went ahead and observed that, 14. To attract the rigor of Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 Regulations, mens rea is not an indispensable requirement and the correct test is one of preponderance of probabilities. Merely because the operation of the aforesaid two provisions of the 2003 Regulations invite penal consequences on the defaulters, proof beyond reasonable doubt as held by this Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. Kishore R. Ajmera (supra) is not an indispensable requirement. The inferential conclusion from the proved and admitted facts, so long the same are reasonable and can be legitimately arrived at on a consideration of totality of the materials, would be permissible and legally justified. 50. In addition, attention is also drawn on the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Narayanan Vs. Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India (2013) 12 SCC 152, wherein, the Hon ble Apex Court, while stressing upon the importance of prevention of market abuse and prevention of market integrity, stated that, 35. Prevention of market abuse and preservation of market integrity is the hallmark of Securities Law. Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g funds through overseas bank accounts and therefore, the shareholding of Matterhorn Ventures of 9.98% shares of Herbertsons actually belonged to the promoter category being totally funded by the Noticee. In view of the same, I find and conclude that the Noticee indeed had misrepresented the truth and concealed a material fact known to him that the shareholding shown in the name of Matterhorn actually belonged to the promoter category as the same was totally funded by the Noticee thereby, violating the provisions of Regulation 4(2)(f) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. 53. I note that Section 11 of the SEBI Act, 1992 confers a duty on the Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market. The said objectives are all interlinked. In order to develop the securities market, it is necessary that the interest of investors is protected. Any manipulation in the market would impact the interest of investors adversely. The existence of manipulative practices would result in loss of trust of these investors in the Indian securities market impacting market integrity. In view of the same, a robust securities market is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Noticee has been indulging in manipulative and fraudulent activities and indulging in unfair trade practices while dealing in the securities market in violation of the securities laws. 55. In view of the aforesaid findings, I find that appropriate directions under Section 11B read with Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992 in order to protect the market integrity and deter such activities from the markets would meet the ends of justice. ORDER AND DIRECTIONS 56. In view of the foregoing observations and findings, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 11(1) and 11B read with Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992, hereby direct the following: 56.1 The Noticee is hereby restrained from accessing the securities market and further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, for a period of three (3) years from the date of this order; 56.2 The Noticee is further restrained from associating himself with any listed company or proposed to be listed company, in any capacity, directly or indirectly, for a period of three (3) year from the date of this order; 56.3 Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
