Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + AT SEBI - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1485 - AT - SEBIUnfair trade practices - Ingenuine trading of shares - Manipulation of price scrip - charge of raising price artificially - violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 - HELD THAT:- The investigative reports nor the WTM or the AO found any connection between the buyer and the seller. We also find that neither in the investigative report nor in the impugned order any connection has been found between the appellant with the promoters / directors of the Company. Thus, no causal connection has been established. The investigative report finds that no adverse inference can be drawn against the buyer merely because the buyer had placed buy orders above LTP. On this basis, the buyer was exonerated from the charge of manipulation in the price of the scrip when admittedly the buyer was placing buy orders above the LTP. Buy orders were placed at 9.15 hrs and sell orders were placed during the course of the day but not immediately after the buy orders nor the sell orders of the appellants were placed before the buy orders.There is no finding that the appellant has indulged in fraudulent or unfair trade practices in securities. Selling miniscule amount of shares by itself is not illegal nor manipulative nor violative of Regulation 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations unless collusion with others is found. Allegation that the appellant has contributed to the LTP cannot be upheld in the absence of any collusion with the buyer or promoter / director of the Company. One has to establish a connection between a buyer and with the seller in order to infer a manipulation in the price of the scrip. See SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VERSUS KISHORE R. AJMERA [2016 (2) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT] - There must be evidence to show collusion between the buyer and the seller. In the instant case there is none. The principle of preponderance of probability cannot be exercised in the absence of any connection between the seller and the buyer. The charge that the appellant had contributed to the LTP as a seller which resulted in the manipulation in the price of the scrips cannot be sustained in the light of the glaring fact that the same charge against the buyer had been dropped. Charge of raising price artificially has to be established and the element of collusion between the buyer and the seller is a sine quo non. We are in the entire agreement with the aforesaid decisions and reiterate that in the absence of any finding of collusion between the buyer and the seller the charge contributing to the LTP cannot be sustained - orders restraining the appellant from accessing the securities market cannot be sustained.
|