TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een attributed to their trading pattern. New LTP, NHP and a few first trades in the scrip have been created/done by these appellants which would prima facie points towards a manipulative effort. It is on record that the scrip was progressively doing well during the investigation period with substantial increase in both prices and volumes. No connection with the promoters of the Company or with the Company itself has been attributed to the appellants. There is no evidence or even any discussion on any fund transfer between the appellants or the appellants with any other entities in the absence of which motive for a collusive or manipulative effort becomes blunt. When a group of 16 entities themselves becomes parties to each other's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber And M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Nishant Upadhyay and Chintan Sheth, Advs. For the Respondent : Kumar Desai, Nishit Dhruva, Chirag Bhavsar and Ms. Eram Quraishi, Advs. ORDER DR. C.K.G. NAIR, MEMBER 1. These 13 appeals have been filed challenging the order of the Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) dated November 30, 2017. By the said order 16 entities are found to have violated the provisions of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) and Regulation 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (e) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ('PFUTP Regulations' for sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to all the noticees, except noticees no. 7,8 and 14, though noticees 7 and 8 also replied to the show cause notice. Thereafter personal hearing was granted on September 7, 2017 by the second AO which was availed by some of the noticees through their authorized representative while some of the noticees sought adjournment. Therefore, a second opportunity of hearing was granted on November 9, 2017 during which also some more noticees were represented by authorized representatives. After taking into account the replies filed by the noticees and the statements made by the authorized representatives the order impugned in these appeals was passed on November 30, 2017. 4. Shri Nishant Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellant raised a prel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustainable as no evidence against the appellant has been brought on record to prove the alleged violation of the stated provisions of PFUTP Regulations. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further sought to distinguish the role of each of the appellant in terms of their contribution to LTP and NHP using appellant-wise details on these parameters. It was contended that individual contribution of each appellant is very negligible, very often ₹ 3 to ₹ 5; in many cases no contribution to NHP; the number of trades involved is very small - all in single digits - and in any case there is no finding for the Patch - 2 and Patch - 3 of the investigation period. In any case, it was contended that for every scrip there will be LTP, NHP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order gives the details of all the LTPs created/contributed by each of the appellant/noticees. It shows that together they added ₹ 117.70 to the LTP by means of just 72 trades. Similarly, appellants/noticees had contributed ₹ 22 NHPs in 11 trades which was 19% of the total market NHP. Further, they contributed 36 first trades out of a market total of 88 such trades. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants did not provide any meaningful replies in their statement and simply stated that they did not provide any contact number in the KYC forms etc. because it was not a requirement and in any case usage of a phone number is not sufficient to prove any involvement in insider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BI was doing investigation during the interim and some delay though has happened on account of change in the AO. 10. We note that though the impugned order deals with trading in the name of the minor, no action has been rightly contemplated against the minor. As regards the other noticees/appellants on appeal before us we note that though their relationship through common address, common mobile numbers etc. are matters of record and proved no motive has been attributed to their trading pattern. It is a fact that new LTP, NHP and a few first trades in the scrip have been created/done by these appellants which would prima facie points towards a manipulative effort. At the same time, it is on record that the scrip was progressively doing we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
