2016 (2) TMI 1401 - AT - SEBI

Order quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication after finding no sufficient evidence of concerted trading and proportionality issues

The AT held that the impugned order's findings were partly correct and partly incorrect, finding insufficient cogent evidence of concerted trading among ... Imposition of a consolidated monetary penalty u/s 15HA - allegedly indulged in fictitious and artificial trading activities such as Self trades, Intra-trades, Multiple First Trades and even Synchronized Trades - violation of a Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) (d); 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the SEBI PFUTP Regulations - HELD THAT:- The conclusions arrived at in the impugned order are based on certain facts which are partly correct and partly incorrect. No privy or concert is shown to exist in the impugned order, which could prove the charge of acting jointly by the appellants. There has to be unambiguous and clear evidence in respect of the connection sought to be established among the ten appellants by the learned adjudicating officer in the impugned order. The guilt or culpability of each of the appellants has to be analyzed and established separately before holding them guilty of forming an alleged group to manipulate the price or volume in a given case. Mere common landline number or that of the accountant of the appellants would not by itself convert certain entities into a group or concert who could have jointly traded in a design. It is a serious charge and hence cogent and convincing evidence is required to be brought on record before the said charge could be proved against the appellants. Admittedly, there is a charge of making profit by the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1.10 crore whereas in the impugned order the same is computed over Rs. 2.25 crore. The reason of such a finding is hardly to be noted in the impugned order. Alternatively, it has been specifically argued by Shri Gaurav Joshi, learned senior counsel, that even if certain charge is proved against some or all the appellants, the question of proportionality of the punishment has not been looked into and a consolidated penalty of Rs. 5 crore is imposed by the learned adjudicating officer, to be paid jointly and severally. Therefore, the appellants have filed an affidavit before us to the effect that there was no alleged group as Sanghvi Group, we quash and set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned adjudicating officer to be adjudicated afresh after taking on record fresh replies to the show cause notice from the appellants; and in according with law. Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the imposition of a consolidated monetary penalty under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act is sustainable where appellants are alleged to have violated Section 12A and PFUTP Regulations by forming a concerted 'group' to manipulate price and volume. 2. Whether the findings of concert/privy or acting in concert (the alleged 'group') were supported by cogent and convincing evidence or founded on presumption and/or insufficient indicia such as common telephone/e-mail details. 3. Whether trading above the last traded price, execution of screen-based trades with delivery and mixed profit/loss outcomes, or absence of demonstrable intra-group sale/purchase transactions preclude a finding of market manipulation as charged. 4. Whether supply of the Inspection Report (or relevant extracts) to the appellants was necessary in order to meet the requirements of natural justice and to enable effective reply to the show cause notice. 5. Whether the adjudicating officer erred in not making appellant-wise findings of culpability and in failing to consider proportionality before imposing a joint and several consolidated penalty. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Sustainability of consolidated penalty under Section 15HA for alleged group manipulation Legal framework: Section 15HA empowers imposition of monetary penalty for contraventions of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations; PFUTP Regulations prohibit fraudulent and unfair trade practices including manipulative transactions. Precedent Treatment: The impugned order relied upon the show cause notice and an Inspection Report reference; no precedent was cited by the Court in the text for upholding or displacing the statutory power to impose penalty. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether statutory power was exercised on the basis of cogent evidence demonstrating formation of a group and concerted manipulation. It found that the adjudicating officer's conclusions were founded more on presumption than on unambiguous evidence linking the appellants into a concerted design to manipulate prices/volume. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - statutory penal power must be exercised on the basis of cogent, convincing evidence establishing contravention and concerted action; unsupported inference of group liability is insufficient. Conclusion: The consolidated penalty cannot be sustained where the foundational finding of a group acting in concert is not supported by clear and cogent evidence. Matter remitted for fresh adjudication. Issue 2 - Sufficiency of evidence to establish concert/acting in concert Legal framework: Allegation of acting in concert/group requires affirmative proof of connection/privy or concert between entities; serious charge demanding cogent evidence. Precedent Treatment: The adjudicating officer relied on transaction charts and the Inspection Report reference; the Tribunal did not rely on any authority but applied principles of evidence and natural justice. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that indicia such as common landline or common e-mail/mobile number (including an accountant's number) and stereotyped replies do not, by themselves, establish concert. There was no unambiguous evidence of privy or coordinated instructions, no disclosure of intra-group transfers, and no individualized finding showing how each appellant participated in a common design. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - factual links constituting concert must be proved with clarity; mere common contact details or familial/common administrative arrangements are inadequate to establish a manipulative group. Conclusion: Findings of concert were based on presumption; adjudicating officer failed to demonstrate specific connecting evidence. Quash and remit for fresh consideration. Issue 3 - Legality of trading above LTP, screen-based trades with delivery, and mixed profit/loss as bearing on manipulation finding Legal framework: Transactions at prevailing market price and screen-based trading with delivery, coupled with actual settlement, are material to assess whether trades were fictitious/artificial under PFUTP; mere trading above LTP is not per se illegal. Precedent Treatment: Not specifically cited. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that trading above LTP is not inherently illegal and that the adjudicating officer failed to consider that trades were screen-based with delivery and that some appellants incurred losses. The order did not analyze individual transaction contexts or demonstrate how market-based trades amounted to manipulative conduct for each appellant. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - factual context (screen-based execution, delivery, profit/loss profile) must be examined before concluding the existence of fictitious or manipulative trades; trading above LTP alone does not establish culpability. Conclusion: The adjudicating officer's failure to consider these factors vitiated the manipulation finding; fresh adjudication required with individual analysis. Issue 4 - Obligation to supply Inspection Report/extracts and natural justice Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that material relied upon by the adjudicating authority be made available to the person so they can mount an effective reply. Precedent Treatment: The respondent relied on disclosure in the show cause notice and absence of a request for the Inspection Report; the Tribunal applied natural justice principles to assess adequacy of disclosure. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that reliance upon an Inspection Report (or extracts) in adjudication without supplying it to appellants deprived them of the opportunity to make effective replies, amounting to contravention of natural justice. The absence of a specific request does not absolve the obligation where the report materially underpins the case against the appellants. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an adjudicating officer relies on an inspection report or its portions, those materials (or relevant extracts) must be supplied to the affected parties to ensure a fair hearing. Conclusion: Failure to supply the Inspection Report/extracts rendered the adjudication procedurally flawed; matter remitted with direction to supply and permit fresh replies. Issue 5 - Need for appellant-wise findings and consideration of proportionality and joint & several liability Legal framework: Penalty imposition requires individualised findings of culpability and consideration of proportionality; joint and several liability must be supported by evidence of joint wrongdoing. Precedent Treatment: Not discussed; the Court applied these legal principles to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted absence of appellant-specific analysis in the impugned order, inconsistencies in computation of alleged profits, and no assessment of proportionality before fixing a consolidated Rs. 5 crore penalty to be paid jointly and severally. It emphasized that guilt of each appellant must be separately established before joint/several penal liability is imposed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - adjudicator must make individualized findings and consider proportionality; a collective penalty without such analysis is unsustainable. Conclusion: Impugned joint and several consolidated penalty set aside; adjudicator directed to reevaluate culpability and proportionality on individual basis on remand. Disposition and Directions arising from Analysis The Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the adjudicating officer to: (a) take fresh replies from the appellants; (b) place on record the Inspection Report or relevant extracts relied upon; (c) supply same to appellants; and (d) adjudicate afresh with appellant-wise findings and consideration of proportionality within a specified period. Appeals disposed of with no order as to costs.