Tribunal overturns 6-year ban for market manipulation due to lack of collusion

The Tribunal overturned the order imposing a 6-year ban on market access and trading activities for alleged market manipulation. The appellant's trading behavior was deemed suspicious, but the lack of collusion between the appellant and any buyer led to the charges being unsubstantiated. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proving collusion to establish market manipulation and highlighted the importance of concrete evidence in cases of fraudulent trading practices. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the significance of establishing collusion in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Allegations of market manipulation and violation of securities regulations leading to a ban on market access.
2. Interpretation of trading patterns and motive behind trading activities.
3. Application of legal precedents to determine the validity of charges.
4. Examination of collusion between buyers and sellers to establish market manipulation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order imposing a 6-year ban on accessing the securities market and trading activities due to alleged market manipulation. The appellant was accused of contributing to the positive last traded price (LTP) as a seller, creating a misleading appearance of trading in a specific company's scrip.

2. The Whole Time Member found the appellant's trading behavior suspicious, selling miniscule shares during high demand despite holding a substantial share, indicating a motive to increase the scrip's price. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in SEBI vs. Kishore R. Ajmera, the Member concluded that the trading pattern amounted to manipulation, violating relevant regulations.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the case in light of a previous judgment (Appeal no.97 of 2019) involving similar issues. It emphasized the necessity of establishing collusion between buyers and sellers to prove artificial price inflation. In this case, the absence of collusion between the appellant and any buyer led to the conclusion that the charges could not be substantiated.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order, citing the lack of evidence connecting the appellant as a seller with any colluding buyer. Relying on the precedent set in Nishith M. Shah HUF vs. SEBI, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proving collusion to establish market manipulation. The decision highlighted the need for concrete evidence to support allegations of fraudulent trading practices.

---