https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294096 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294096 Insider trading - Use of Price sensitive information - determination of price by a market at a given day - HELD THAT:- In our view the information itself was not a price sensitive information. The record would show that GIPL had invested only Rs. 4.9 crores in the Simplex project in the said financial year. It represented only 0.05% of the GIPL s order book value at the end of August, 013 and only 0.7% of its turnover for the said financial year. Further due to the termination of the agreement a large project worth Rs. 1648 returned back to GIPL while the smaller project of Rs. 940 crore remained with Simplex. In a way it could have been a positive information to the shareholders. Adjudicating Officer however has calculated the change in the order book value without assessing whether the change was positive or negative. Considering the minor proportion of the transaction to the turnover of GIPL, in our view the information cannot be termed as price sensitive information. The Simplex had not even disclosed the said information to the stock exchanges. Even if it is assumed that the information was is a price sensitive information, still the appellant cannot be blamed of insider trading for the reasons that he did not trade on the basis of the information . The appellant was able to show his dire need to infuse fund in the entity under the master restructuring agreement to implement a CDR package as detailed supra. He was even required to sell his agricultural land and flat details of which are already given hereinabove. In these circumstances he sold the shares. In the case of Rajiv B. Gandhi [ 2008 (5) TMI 729 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI ] on fact this Tribunal held that the appellants therein were able to rebut the presumption that they traded on the basis of UPSI as they had a necessity to sell the shares. Appellant had contended that respondent SEBI had deliberately taken the closing price of September, 2013 when the price were around 30% lower than the closing price as on September 3, 2013. By adding this extra day SEBI had widened the gap between the selling price and the price found on 4 th September, 2013. In fact the share closing price rose on September 3, 2013 i.e. on the date of disclosure of the information. However, according to the appellant, respondent SEBI only inorder to show that the appellant had avoided the probable loss calculated the figures based on the last traded price of September 4, 2013. As recorded that the information was disclosed to the BSE and NSE on September 3, 2012 at 1.05 p.m. and 2.40 p.m. respectively i.e. much before the closure of the market. There is no reason forwarded in the impugned order as to why the last traded price of September 3, 2013 is not taken into consideration by respondent SEBI. For all these reasons in our view the order cannot be sustained. Appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. SEBI shall take steps for refund of the amount already deposited by the appellant. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530