TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is said to have taken place in the year 1999-2000 and proceedings against the appellants were initiated only in the year 2005 in respect of one of the scrips and a common impugned order came to be passed only in August, 2011 debarring the appellants from accessing the capital market for a period of two years. Apart from the inordinate delay, we are otherwise satisfied that the merits of the case also require that the appellants to be only warned in the circumstances of the present case. 3. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) carried out investigations and found that the scrips of as many as six companies namely, Ravalgon Sugar Farms Limited (Ravalgon), Shrenuj Co. Limited (Shrenuj), Roofit Industries Limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary for us to record reasons. Then in the scrip of Prudential, Shri Prashant Saran, the whole time member by his order dated November 11, 2010 warned the appellants to be careful in future and exercise due care and diligence in the conduct of their affairs in the securities market. While giving them a warning, the whole time member had taken note of the previous orders by which the appellants for similar manipulations in other scrips during the same period had been kept out of the market. He also took note of our order in Appeal no. 148 of 2006 by which we had reduced the period of debarment from six months to two months. While giving a warning to the appellants the whole time member observed in his order dated November 11, 2010 as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent capacity. He was of the view that imposition of further penalty was not necessary. Enquiries were also conducted by Shri Prashant Saran in the scrip of Jagsonpal and by his order dated August 2, 2011 he has debarred the appellants from accessing the capital market for a period of two years from the date of the order without noticing his earlier orders by which he had warned the appellants on the ground that they had earlier been debarred. This order has been impugned in these appeals. As already observed, the period during which the manipulation is said to have taken place is the same, the modus operandi adopted by the appellants in this scrip as well as in the scrip of Ravalgon and Shrenuj was also the same, we see no reason why he sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
