Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + AT SEBI - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1419 - AT - SEBIAbnormal price rise in the scrip - off-market transfer - appellants, among others, have been restrained from dealing in the securities market, directly or indirectly, for a period of 4 years - HELD THAT:- The impugned transactions, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, would fall in the realm of violations of PFUTP Regulations. Individual argument that each entity’s trade is miniscule and only on a few days alone etc. is not sufficient to rebut the findings in the impugned order. The appellants have not given the details of their off-market transactions with an entity which is also found to be part of the group which manipulated the scrip of RMCL. The unwillingness of the appellants in giving the details of those off-market transactions and in turn placing buy orders above LTP in the market subsequently cannot be viewed in isolation. The argument submitted by appellants that no further connection has been established therefore has no merit in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. In such matters, the preponderance of probability based on the totality of circumstances, as held by the Apex Court in the matter of Kishore R. Ajmera [2016 (2) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT ] squarely applies. We note from the impugned order that there has been a division of the noticees into two categories: 12 of them have been imposed a restraint for 4 years while 7 of them have been let off with a warning. This is apparently based on the magnitude of trade and the contribution to the LTP. By the same reasoning we are of the view that the restraint imposed on Neetu Gupta cannot be sustained particularly when she was only a seller who traded only on two occasions. However, being part of the group and recipient of the off-market deal we do not propose to completely exonerate her. Similarly given the facts of the matter we are of the considered view that a uniform restraint of 4 years imposed on the appellants is harsh. We are of the considered view that a warning is sufficient to meet the ends of justice in respect of Neetu Gupta. For others we reduce the period of restraint from 4 years to 1 year and from 4 years to 2 years respectability. Directions in the impugned order are modified accordingly.
|