Market manipulation under PFUTP needs proved participation; mere association fails, while repeated high-price buying in an illiquid scrip supports fraud.

Liability for market manipulation under the PFUTP regime requires proved participation in a fraudulent scheme; mere association, linkage, or conjecture is insufficient. On the facts discussed, no.3's charge failed because there was no evidence of trades, price manipulation, or a proved conspiracy, while no.5 and no.6 were found to have engaged in manipulative and fraudulent trading by repeatedly placing buy orders above the last traded price in an illiquid scrip. No.2's alleged participation in the scheme was not established, but the separate failure to make mandatory disclosures in the prescribed form under the PIT Regulations was upheld. The broker's role was treated as facilitative rather than neutral, and the manipulation finding against no.7 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether noticee no.3 was liable for market manipulation under Section 12A of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations on the basis of alleged connections alone; (ii) Whether noticee nos.5 and 6 had engaged in manipulative and fraudulent trading by repeatedly placing buy orders above the last traded price in an illiquid scrip; (iii) Whether noticee no.2 could be held liable for participation in the manipulative scheme and for non-disclosure under the PIT Regulations; and (iv) Whether noticee no.7, acting as broker, was part of the manipulative scheme and had facilitated the impugned trades.

Issue (i): Whether noticee no.3 was liable for market manipulation under Section 12A of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations on the basis of alleged connections alone.

Analysis: The finding against noticee no.3 rested only on his alleged linkage with noticee nos.2, 5 and 6 and on an inference that he facilitated offloading of shares. No trade was executed by him. There was no material showing that he manipulated the price, conspired with the price manipulators, or was part of any proved scheme. Mere acquaintance or past association was held insufficient to infer fraudulent conduct in the absence of positive evidence.

Conclusion: The charge against noticee no.3 was not proved and the finding of violation could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether noticee nos.5 and 6 had engaged in manipulative and fraudulent trading by repeatedly placing buy orders above the last traded price in an illiquid scrip.

Analysis: The trading pattern showed repeated buy orders placed materially above the last traded price on several dates, often when cheaper offers were available. The scrip was illiquid, the deviations from market price were significant, and the conduct was inconsistent with normal market behaviour. The repeated pattern and its positive impact on the price supported a finding of manipulation and fraud under the PFUTP Regulations.

Conclusion: The violation by noticee nos.5 and 6 was established.

Issue (iii): Whether noticee no.2 could be held liable for participation in the manipulative scheme and for non-disclosure under the PIT Regulations.

Analysis: The inferred link between noticee no.2 and noticee nos.5 and 6 was held to be speculative and unsupported by direct or indirect evidence of a meeting of minds. The sales by noticee no.2, including the limited matching trades, were not enough to prove participation in the alleged scheme. However, the separate default of not making the required disclosure in the prescribed form on multiple occasions was established, and compliance with the prescribed disclosure format was held mandatory.

Conclusion: The PFUTP-based allegation against noticee no.2 failed, but the penalty for non-disclosure under the PIT Regulations was upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether noticee no.7, acting as broker, was part of the manipulative scheme and had facilitated the impugned trades.

Analysis: Noticee no.7 was not treated as a mere executing broker on an arm's length basis. The record showed a deep-rooted connection with noticee nos.5 and 6, including common control and shareholding links, which supported the conclusion that the broker facilitated the impugned trading pattern and was not an innocent intermediary.

Conclusion: The finding of participation in the manipulative scheme against noticee no.7 was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal of noticee no.3 was allowed, the appeal of noticee no.2 was partly allowed with the PFUTP charge set aside but the disclosure penalty maintained, and the appeals of noticee nos.5, 6 and 7 were dismissed insofar as the manipulative trading findings were concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for market manipulation under the PFUTP regime requires proved participation in a fraudulent scheme or conduct, and cannot rest merely on association or conjectural linkage; repeated purchase above the last traded price in an illiquid scrip may itself justify an inference of manipulation.

---