Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 77 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAIViolation of PFUTP Regulations - high quantity orders repeatedly at prices far away from the market prices - Held that:- We do not find merit with the argument of the senior counsel for the appellant that large number of cross deals made through the appellants by his clients were just normal trades of buying and selling in the securities market and as a broker he only placed orders in the trading system and obtained the brokerage. Data given in para 7 clearly show that orders were placed at prices far away from the prevailing market price and that too in many instances. While the order price may be within the circuit filter range, the intention behind placing such orders at far away prices is not normal. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was aware of the impending order of the UTI as recorded by the investigating officer of SEBI. We also note that the cross deals were all very substantial ranging from 25000 to 75000, while the synchronised deals with the UTI orders were for 2 lakh shares. Even if some of the orders placed by the clients did not fructify because they were at far away prices very fact that orders were placed at far away prices is sufficient to give a false picture to the investors in the scrip. Therefore the argument of the appellant that non- fructified orders do not impact the market and as long as the orders are within the range of the circuit filters there is no abnormality in placing the orders cannot be accepted. Where the orders are found to have been placed at far away prices to manipulate the market then it would amount to violating the PFUTP Regulations. In the instant case, inference drawn by the WTM of SEBI that placing high quantity orders repeatedly at prices far away from the market prices constituted violation of PFUTP Regulations cannot be faulted. Above inference is further fortified by the fact that there were synchronised trading of large quantities. We also note that the enquiry officer had recommended suspension of the licence of the appellant for a period of 2 years while the WTM of SEBI has ordered suspension of certificate for a period of only one month.
|