Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Per : P.K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent Board, we are of the view that this appeal can be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in Appeal no. 186 of 2011 (Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.) decided on November 2, 2011. 2. Learned senior counsel for the Board reiterates the stand taken by him in Aditya Birla case that the amount should not be allowed to be realized since a valid pledge has not been created. Learned counsel for the appellant disputes the same stating that there is indeed a securities interest created in terms of clause 3.2 of the master loan agreement dated August 5, 2009. We do not think it necessary to deal with this issue afresh as it already stands covered by para 6 of our order in Aditya Birla case. Following our earlier order, we set aside the impugned order and issue the following directions:- (i) The demat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Per : P.K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) for some time. We are given to understand that decision on the request made by the appellant to the Board on January 31, 2012 is yet to be taken. On a suggestion made by the learned senior counsel for the Board, we direct that this appeal may be treated as a representation made to the Board. The Board may consider the prayer made by the appellant in this appeal and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from today. The Board is free to call for any further information/documents that may be required for arriving at its decision. The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that appeal can be disposed off in terms of the order passed by this Tribunal in Appeal no. 163 of 2011 (M/s. Alka Diamond Industries Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India) decided on October 14, 2011. We order accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member 1. Challenge in this appeal is against the imposition of penalty of Rs.10 lacs on the appellant under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for violating the provisions of regulation 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 the ‘FUTP Regulations). The appellant is engaged in the business of trading in shares. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) investigated the trading in the scrip of M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. (the company) during the periods between July 09, 2004 and January 14, 2005 and between August 01, 2005 and September 5, 2005. It was observed that the price of the scrip registered wide fluctuations during the investigation periods. During investigation it came to light that the appellant had traded substantially in the scrip of the company in his own name and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member 1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the imposition of penalty of Rs.5 lacs on the appellant under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with regulation 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 the ‘FUTP Regulations). The Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) investigated trading in the scrip of M/s. Adani Exports Ltd. (the company) during the periods between July 09, 2004 and January 14, 2005 and between August 01, 2005 and September 5, 2005. It was observed that the price of the scrip showed wide fluctuations during the investigation periods. During investigation, it came to the notice of the Board that the appellant had traded substantially in the scrip of the company through M/s. Ess Intermediaries Ltd., who is a sub-broker of M/s. ASE Capital Market. On inve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P.K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 28, 2010 passed by the whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) confirming the ex parte ad interim order dated April 23, 2009 in the matter of Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited (the company). The ex parte order was passed restraining the appellant and a few other entities from accessing the securities market till further directions. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. The alleged role of the appellant in manipulating the scrip of the company is discussed in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. After passing of the impugned order, the appellant was granted personal hearing. The appellant appeared before the whole time member and also submitted the required details. It is the case of the appellant that he is out of the securities market for almost three years under the interim order of the Board. The investigation qua the appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra, Member 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated December 31, 2010 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) holding the appellant guilty of violating regulation 13 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Merchant Bankers) Regulations, 1992 (for short merchant bankers regulations) and certain sub-clauses of clause 5 and 7 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investors Protection Guidelines) 2000 (for short the DIP guidelines) and imposing a penalty of Rs.25 lacs under Section 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the Act). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are M/s. Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd., the appellant before us, is a merchant banker registered with the Board under Section 12 of the Act and is said to be in the business of providing merchant banking services for more than two decades. The Board conducted an inspection of the books ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) In this application, the appellant has prayed that the order dated July 26, 2011 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India holding the appellant guilty of violating Section 15C of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and imposing a penalty of Rs.2 lacs be stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel for the Board has stated that as per the existing practice, the Board will not take any coercive steps for recovery of the penalty amount during pendency of the appeal. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Board, we do not consider it necessary to stay the operation of the impugned order. Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P.K. Malhotra, Member 1. The appellant before us is a stock broker of the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board). The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated October 13, 2011 passed by the whole time member of the Board holding the appellant guilty of violating the provisions of regulation 7 read with clause A(2) of the code of conduct as specified in Schedule II of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 (stock brokers regulations) and prohibiting him from taking up new clients for a period of one month. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Board carried out investigations into the dealings of shares of Sawaca Communication Limited (the company) from October 4, 1999 to December 30, 1999. It was noted by the Board that price of the scrip had increased from ` 19.35 as on October 1, 1999 to ` 106 as on January 4, 2000. There was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member 1. This appeal is directed against imposition of a penalty of Rs.18 lacs on the appellants under section 15A(b) and 15H(ii) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for violating the provisions of regulations 7 and 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the SAST Regulations). The appellants are promoters of M/s. A.V. Cottex Limited (the company). During examination of the offer document concerning open offer made by Mr. Sudhir M. Naheta and Mrs. Rajkumari S. Naheta in terms of regulations 10 and 12 of the SAST Regulation, it came to light that the appellants failed to comply with the SAST Regulations in respect of disclosures laid down under regulations 7 and 11 of the SAST Regulations. A show cause notice dated 11th March, 2010 was issued to the appellants. The appellants filed a common reply to the show cause notice which was also followed up...
Tag this Judgment!