Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the letter dated February 7, 2012 issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) to its merchant banker stating that the appellant is not eligible to proceed with its rights issue till the prohibitary order under Section 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act) against Cals Refineries Ltd., one of its (appellant’s) promoter group entities, is in force. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE). With a view to mobilize funds for the power project and pursuant to the resolution passed by it under Section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 the appellant decided to issue shares on rights basis to its existing shareholders. Accordingly, on August 17, 2010, it filed a draft letter of offer through its merchant bankers (respondent no. 2) f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy 1. The appellant is a Member of U P Stock Exchange Limited and a sub-broker of UPSE Securities Limited. He is said to be in regular business of purchase and sale of shares on behalf of his clients. One of his clients, Mr. Ashesh Agarwal, was dealing in several scrips including that of Rich Capital and Financial Services Limited (referred to hereinafter as the company). In this appeal, the appellant objects to imposition of a penalty of __5 lac under section 15HA and 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The adjudicating Officer found the appellant guilty of violating regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and Regulation 15(1)(b) relating to code of conduct for sub-brokers specified in Schedule II of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulation, 1992 (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P.K. Malhotra 1. This order will dispose of two Appeals no. 76 and 81 of 2012 which arise out of identical facts. The appeals were heard together and, with the consent of the parties, are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Appeal no. 76 of 2012. 2. The appellant company is a stock broker having its registered office at Mumbai. It is said to be doing proprietary trading from 2 locations through 19 terminals in Mumbai. The terminals are operated by ‘jobbers’ authorized by the appellant. It traded in the scrip of Edserv Softsystems Ltd. (the company) on the first day of its listing on March 2, 2009 and for a few days thereafter. Since price of the scrip saw an upward movement, the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. and the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. carried out investigations for the period from March 02 – 06, 2009 and March 02 – 09, 2009 respectively into the trading of the scrip. Subsequently, the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. This order will dispose of two appeals no. 8 of 2012 and 196 of 2011 which arise out of a common order dated September 30, 2011 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) holding the appellants in these two appeals, alongwith one other entity, guilty of violating regulation 11(1) read with second proviso to regulation 11(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (for short takeover code) and imposing a penalty of ` 10 crores on them under Section 15H of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act). Counsel for the parties agree that since a common show cause notice was issued and a common order was passed by the Board, the appeals can also be disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on receipt of a complaint dated October 1, 2010 from the Company Secretary of M/s MAN Industries (Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy 1. The present appeal has been filed against an order passed under section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the Act) by the whole time member restraining the appellant from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market or accessing the securities market directly or indirectly for a period of one year from the date of the impugned order. The appellant is an individual who applied for the allotment of preferential issue of shares of Datasoft Application Software (India) Ltd. (the company). The charge leveled against the appellant, in short, is name lending which resulted in facilitating G.S. Sridhar and his group of companies in making an application in the preferential allotment of the shares of the company. The whole time member concluded that the appellant had violated regulation 6 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated November 11, 2011 passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) holding the appellant guilty of violating regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fradulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (for short the regulations) and imposing a penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. 2. The appellant is said to be a day trader doing intra-day trading through M/s. Ajmera Associates Pvt. Ltd., a broker registered with the Bombay Stock Exchange (for short the broker). The Board conducted investigations in trading in the scrip of M/s. Advik Laboratories Ltd. (the company) for the period from September 2003 to January 2004 and observed that the price of the scrip had risen 59 per cent in 67 trading days. Investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy 1. The appellant is an investor in the scrip of M/s. Oregon Commercial Limited (the company). The present appeal is against an order passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) imposing a penalty of Rs.2 lacs under section 15 I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The penalty was imposed since the adjudicating officer came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of violating the provisions of regulations 3 and 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 FUTP Regulation). 2. The Board conducted investigations in the affairs, trading and dealings in the shares of the company during the period November 21, 2008 to June 8, 2009. Investigations revealed that the appellant had traded in the scrip of the company by placing buy orders at prices significantly ab...
Tag this Judgment!