2020 (5) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....change Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') for violation of provision of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (g) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFUTP Regulations'), the present appeal is preferred. 2. Respondent SEBI had investigated in the trading of the scrip of Mindvision Capital Ltd. (formerly known as Kailash Ficom Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'MCL') during the period June 17, 2009 to February 8, 2010. It was found that in all 72 entities were connected with each other. Out of those entities, 50 entities had bought shares in the off-market from 22 entiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sought exonerated from the proceedings. 4. From the impugned order, it appears that none of the noticees either replied to the show cause notice or appeared in the proceedings except the appellant. The appellant also did not attend respondent SEBI for personal hearing. The AO, inter-alia, held the present appeal guilty of the violation and imposed the monetary penalty as detailed (supra). Hence, the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vikas Bengani submitted before us that no circular trading is made out by the respondent SEBI in the impugned order. There were no reversal trades. The record would show that only 30000 shares of MCL were purchased by the appellant off-market and the same were sold in the market.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....merely because there was no circle of trades the appellant cannot be exonerated. 7. Upon hearing both the sides, in our view, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons. 8. It is an admitted fact that during the relevant period, the appellant has purchased 30000 shares off-market of MCL from one Dadima Capital and sold the same through market to four entities during the relevant period. Paragraph Nos. 25 and 26 of the impugned order would show that the very same Dadima Capital has sold 7500 shares of MCL on July 25, 2009 to one Mangilal Chandanmal Doshi who eventually sold the same on July 27, 2009 to Universal Credit and Nilesh, the very entities who had purchased the shares from the appellant. Besides this, this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Ashok Rupani Judgment is as under :- "7. In Mr. Rakesh Kathotia & Ors. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 07 of 2016 decided by this Tribunal on 27.05.2019) proceedings were quashed on account of inordinate delay. The said decision is squarely applicable to the instant case. For facility, the relevant paragraph of the order is extracted hereunder: "23. It is no doubt true that no period of limitation is prescribed in the Act or the Regulations for issuance of a show cause notice or for completion of the adjudication proceedings. The Supreme Court in Government of India vs, Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Others, [AIR 6 (1989) SC 1771] held that in the absence of any period of limitation, the authority is required to exercis....