Securities enforcement requires clear notice and proof of manipulative intent; synchronized trades are not automatically unlawful.

A regulatory finding cannot be sustained on a basis different from the charge set out in the show cause notice, because the notice must give clear and precise notice of the alleged misconduct and an opportunity to meet it. Synchronized or negotiated trades are not per se illegal; they become actionable only when specific material shows manipulative intent, circular trading, false volume, or similar market abuse. A broker also cannot be fixed with liability on uncharged grounds, including client-code issues not put to notice or trades of clients who were never proceeded against. The penalty order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the penalty could be sustained when the finding proceeded on a basis different from the charge in the show cause notice; (ii) whether synchronized or negotiated trades were per se illegal so as to justify the finding of market manipulation; (iii) whether the broker could be held liable on the basis of client codes and trades of clients who were not proceeded against.

Issue (i): whether the penalty could be sustained when the finding proceeded on a basis different from the charge in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The charge in the notice alleged aiding and abetting of Ketan Parekh entities in synchronized trades. The enquiry officer found that the reference to Ketan Parekh entities was erroneous, yet the matter was sustained on a different footing by treating the broker's trades for his own clients as fictitious and manipulative. The proceedings could not lawfully shift from one alleged fraud to another without a clear and precise charge, and the broker had no opportunity to meet the new basis of liability.

Conclusion: The finding was vitiated and could not be upheld.

Issue (ii): whether synchronized or negotiated trades were per se illegal so as to justify the finding of market manipulation.

Analysis: Negotiated deals executed through the exchange's screen-based system were recognized as permissible. Synchronized trades were not inherently unlawful; they became actionable only if shown to be intended to manipulate the market, create circular trading, avoid regulatory detection, or generate false volumes without change in beneficial ownership. On the record, mere repetition of synchronized trades did not by itself establish fraudulent intent or manipulation.

Conclusion: Synchronized or negotiated trades were not per se illegal and the finding of manipulation was not sustainable on that basis alone.

Issue (iii): whether the broker could be held liable on the basis of client codes and trades of clients who were not proceeded against.

Analysis: The broker acted on client instructions, and no action was taken against the clients whose trades were executed. The allegation relating to allotment of different client codes was also not part of the show cause notice, so no adverse finding could be sustained on that ground. In the circumstances, the broker alone could not be singled out for liability on the record as it stood.

Conclusion: The broker could not be held guilty on those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside and the appeal succeeded, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary or regulatory finding cannot be sustained on a basis beyond the clear charge in the notice, and synchronized or negotiated trades are actionable only when specific material shows manipulative intent or fraudulent market impact.

---