Appeals allowed; regulator failed to prove insider trading, orders quashed and deposits ordered refunded to appellants

SC allowed the appeals and set aside the WTM and SAT orders, holding that the regulator failed to prove foundational facts to raise the presumption of insider trading. SEBI did not establish that the appellants were connected persons or immediate relatives financially dependent on or consulting the alleged insider, nor adduced material showing communication of UPSI. SAT's decision was faulted for non-application of mind. The impugned orders are quashed and deposits made by the appellants under those orders or interim SC orders are ordered to be refunded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of insider trading against the appellants.
2. Determination of whether the appellants were "connected persons" or "insiders" under SEBI regulations.
3. Examination of the relationship and alleged estrangement between the parties.
4. Analysis of the circumstantial evidence and trading patterns.
5. Burden of proof and the role of SEBI in establishing the communication of UPSI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Insider Trading:
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) initiated action against the appellants based on an impounding order and a showcause notice alleging that the appellants traded on the basis of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) received due to their proximity to key individuals within PC Jeweller Ltd. The Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI imposed penalties and restrictions on the appellants, which were upheld by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).

2. Determination of "Connected Persons" or "Insiders":
The WTM found that the appellants, Mrs. Shivani Gupta, Sachin Gupta, Amit Garg, and Quick Developers Pvt. Ltd., were not "connected persons" under Regulation 2(1)(d)(i) of the SEBI (Prevention of Insider Trading Regulations), 2015. The SAT, however, concluded on the "preponderance of probability" that the appellants were insiders based on their trading patterns and timing of trades.

3. Relationship and Alleged Estrangement:
The appellants claimed estrangement from the family, citing family arrangements and resignations from PCJ. The Supreme Court found that the WTM and SAT failed to appreciate the evidence of estrangement, which demonstrated a breakdown of ties both personally and professionally much before the UPSI periods. The Court noted that the appellants were not financially dependent on Balram Garg and did not consult him for trading decisions.

4. Circumstantial Evidence and Trading Patterns:
The Supreme Court analyzed the trading patterns in three phases:
- Phase I (Pre-UPSI1 Period): Mrs. Shivani Gupta sold a large number of shares before the UPSI period, indicating no internal knowledge of the impending buyback offer.
- Phase II (Pre-UPSI2 Period): Shares were sold even before the UPSI2 came into existence, undermining the argument that the appellants had insider information.
- Phase III (UPSI2 Period): Only a small number of shares were sold during this period, and a significant number of shares were still held, contradicting the claim that the appellants sold shares based on UPSI.

The Court concluded that the trading decisions were personal and commercial, with no correlation to the UPSI.

5. Burden of Proof and SEBI's Role:
The Supreme Court emphasized that SEBI failed to provide cogent evidence of communication of UPSI between the parties. The burden of proof was on SEBI to show that the appellants were in possession of UPSI, which they did not discharge. The Court noted that the SAT's reliance on circumstantial evidence without foundational facts was legally unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the WTM and SAT. It held that the appellants were not "immediate relatives" or "connected persons" and were financially independent of Balram Garg. The trading patterns did not correlate with the UPSI, and there was no evidence of communication of UPSI. The SAT's order was found to lack independent assessment and was merely a repetition of the WTM's findings. The deposits made by the appellants were ordered to be refunded.

---