TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a), (b), (e) and (g) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (for short the FUTP regulations) and imposing a penalty of ` 8 lacs under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (the Act). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant, an individual, is an investor and a trader in the share market. The Board conducted investigations into buying, selling and dealing in the scrip of Asian Star Company Ltd. (the company) for the period October 10, 2008 to November 20, 2008 and noticed wide variation in the price of the scrip. The role of the brokers and their clients, who traded in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by synchronized trading and 44.95 per cent of the total market volume and 85.51 per cent of the total number of trades were contributed by structured trades. The details of the trading done by the appellant through Swastika Investment Mart Ltd., a market intermediary, were also provided to the appellant. It was noted that the appellant had lent his name and allowed trading in his account. The appellant's account was operated by Pradesh Nimawat and Suresh Hanswal who were the entities trading in the shares of the company. It was, therefore, alleged that the appellant, in connivance with Swastika, Pradesh and Suresh, entered into these fraudulent transactions which affected the price of the shares leading to ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Members, one to whom is authorised to preside over the sittings of Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court also clarified that the Court has not gone into merits of the challenge to the adjudication order. We, therefore, now proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed his written submissions challenging the procedure of adjudication followed by the Board and also alleging that the penalty of ` 8 lacs has been imposed on the appellant merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It has been further submitted that the findings arrived at by the adjudicating officer are without any evidence and are based on her ipse dixi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed much after the personal hearing granted to the appellant just to cover his lapse. In case the trades entered into by Pradesh and Suresh on behalf of the appellant were without appellant's authority, the appellant would not have justified the trades in his letter dated January 27, 2009 and would have filed FIR immediately when he came to know about the trades. Filing of FIR on March 10, 2011 is only an afterthought to cover up the default of the appellant. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the adjudicating officer. We agree with learned counsel for the respondent Board that the alibi, that appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not disputed, the appellant has not been able to demonstrate as to how these principles have been violated in dealing with his case. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant was given a show cause notice which was replied by him. Thereafter, a personal hearing was also granted and after considering the material available on record, the impugned order was passed. It, therefore, cannot not be said that the principles of natural justice were not followed. We are also not inclined to agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the order is based on conjectures and surmises. The adjudicating officer has given details of the transactions as well as ....