TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside order for lack of specificity in notice, emphasizes natural justice principles</h1> <h3>Money growth Investment and Consultants Pvt. Ltd Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the show cause notice's lack of specificity in disclosing violations and the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice2. Allegations of Artificial and Misleading Trading3. Allegations of Acting as an Unregistered Broker4. Examination of Evidence and Statements5. Adherence to Principles of Natural JusticeSummary:1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not disclose any cause of action or specific violations by the appellant. It was observed that the notice failed to make clear how the appellant violated Regulation 4(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995.2. Allegations of Artificial and Misleading Trading:The appellant was accused of creating an artificial and misleading appearance of trading in the scrip of Shonkh Technologies International Ltd. (STIL) and artificially raising its price. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant executed only three minor trades (sell orders) on three different days, which were not capable of affecting the price. The Tribunal concluded that the charge of manipulation could not be established.3. Allegations of Acting as an Unregistered Broker:The show cause notice alleged that the appellant acted as a sub-broker without registration, violating Rule 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992. The appellant denied this, stating that it had purchased shares from entities named in the notice and sold them, thus not acting as a sub-broker. The Tribunal noted that there was no finding in the impugned order regarding this charge, implying that the explanation provided by the appellant was accepted.4. Examination of Evidence and Statements:The Tribunal examined statements from Mr. Pawan Gupta and Mr. S.K. Gupta. Mr. S.K. Gupta had initially stated that trades were executed by Mr. Pawan Gupta in his name but later retracted this statement. The Tribunal found the retracted statement unreliable and noted that the whole-time member did not record any findings based on it. Therefore, the Tribunal did not rely on this testimony to hold the appellant responsible for manipulating the price of the scrip.5. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das. It highlighted that the show cause notice must be precise and unambiguous, providing the party with a clear understanding of the case to be met. The Tribunal found that the notice in this case did not meet these standards, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
