TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m dealing in the securities market, directly or indirectly, for a period of five years from the date of the ad-interim ex-parte order issued on February 20, 2015. The said direction is following the finding in the impugned order that the appellant (and other noticees) has violated Regulations 3(a),(b),(c) and (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (e) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ("PFUTP Regulations" for convenience). 2. The relevant background of the matter is as follows. The scrip of M/s Gromo Trade & Consultancy Ltd. ("Gromo" for convenience), a listed Company was suspended from trading for a long period till 2012. As on September 30, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated prices. It was also revealed that there was no perceptible change in the fundamentals of the company which would support even a feeble rise in the price of the scrip. 4. Shri Saurabh Bachhawat, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in January 2014 the appellant purchased 1,050 shares of Gromo off-market from one Mr. Ramnarayan who in turn got the same from one Mr. Kushal Jain. Since Mr. Ramnarayan is from the Appellants' native place and was in need of money he took the shares by paying the consideration of Rs. 10,500, though the shares were in the name of Mr. Kushal Jain. On March 20, 2014 the said shares were dematerialized, Mr. Kushal Jain was not one of the preferential allottees and hence the shares were out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruti Securities Ltd. v. SEBI (Appeal No. 102 of 2006 decided on 27.10.2008) and Nagad Sarvar v. SEBI (Appeal No. 336 of 2017 decided on 06.08.2019). 7. Shri Abhiraj Arora, the learned counsel for the respondent SEBI took us through the complete picture regarding the scheme or artifice employed by multiple entities which included the directors of Gromo and entities collectively called the Kamalakshi Group. The modus operendi, according to the learned counsel, is to revive, on paper, a dormant listed company with very little share capital; go for a preferential allotment and by trading in very small number of shares at inflated prices or far away prices from LTP between the group entities to show considerable activity of trading in the scrip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf gives the connection between the appellant and Gromo in clear terms in Table 2 of paragraph 14. Moreover, appellants' explanation regarding receipt of 1,050 shares of Gromo off-market when Gromo itself has a limited floating stock of only about 1300 shares has no veracity. The submission that all the holdings of the appellant are in normal course of business has no merit as the entire issue in the matter is not normal course of business. An unknown company suspended from trading for long; off-market buying of 1,050 shares of the said company which constitutes more than 2% of its share capital and which is in the name of an unknown person (Kushal Jain) on the recommendation of a person from the native place of the appellant with no p....