TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disgorge an amount of Rs. 22,69,461/-along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from December 22, 2008 onwards the present appeal is preferred. 2. The record would show that the respondent SEBI had earlier issued a temporary prohibitory order against the present appellants and two other deceased noticees namely Shailesh Jayantilal Shah and Jayantilal Ratilal Shah restraining them from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market. In the final order, however, the said interim order came to be revoked as a period of around 9 years had passed since the date of passing the temporary prohibitory order. However, the disgorgement order is passed as detailed above finding that the present appellants along with the deceased noticees i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a period preceding the publication of the news items. Out of those 20 entities present proceedings was against the 11 entities named as Shah Group Entities. The present appellants challenged the prohibitory order before this Tribunal vide Appeal No. 132 of 2017 decided on June 30, 2017. This Tribunal disposed of the said appeal with a direction to the respondent SEBI to pass final order within a period of 6 months from the date of the order. The learned counsel for the appellants during oral submissions placed before us a copy of another order passed in the same appeal by this Tribunal in Misc. Application No. 335 of 2017 dated December 21, 2017 which would show that the time of passing the final order was extended for a period of 3 month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus, whatever may be explanation it is an admitted fact that the present appellants were closely connected with said Nirmal Kotecha. 5. In this background, it was found by respondent SEBI that between December 17 to 19, 2008 the present appellants bought shares of PSTL in the following manner:- Sr. No. Name No. of shares during on Dec 17-19, 2008 1. RAJESH JAYANTILAL SHAH 49,216 2. SHAILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH 8,336 3. NIRMAL ROHITBHAI SHAH 24,723 4. DEVANG R SHAH 30,044 5. RITABEN ROHITKUMAR SHAH 22,000 6. JAYANTILAL RATILAL SHAH 5,000 7. BINABEN SHAILESHKUMAR SHAH 10,002 8. NAMITABEN SACHINKUMAR SHAH 3,500 9. SACHIN JAYANTILAL SHAH 10,000 10. MANISHABEN RAJESHKUMAR SHAH 5,000 11. JINNY NIRMAL SHAH 2,500 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the charges. 6. The WTM however found that while earlier the appellants have traded in the scrip of PSTL in miniscule quantity or on December 16, 2008 on day trading basis, particularly from December 17 to 19, 2008 they had accumulated large amount of shares as detailed (supra). Further, taking into consideration the fact that Nirmal Kotecha was in regular contact with the members of present Shah family and more particularly the trading pattern of the appellants to accumulate the shares before December 22, 2008 and off-load the same on December 22, 2008 at 10.30 am, WTM held that it would clearly show that the present appellants along with the deceased noticees had in violation of Regulation 11 of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r not excluded from disgorgement. In the circumstances he wanted the appeal be allowed. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, on the basis of the material placed before us states that no inference in the order is warranted. Upon hearing both the s the appeal deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:- Though the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is a delay in the proceeding, the documents filed by the appellants themselves would show that before the WTM they were pressing time and again for more documents from the respondents before filing reply to the show cause notice. Even though a compact disk was supplied to them the demand continued which ultimately led to filing of reply belate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... WTM that the proceedings against them be kept in abeyance till the proceedings against Nirmal Kotecha would come to an end i.e. appeal filed by Nirmal Kotecha in this Tribunal is decided. Judicial notice can be taken that the appeal filed by Nirmal Kotecha, i.e. Appeal No. 261 of 2018 is finally dismissed by this Tribunal on merit on 2-3-2020 holding him guilty of causing false media report causing the rise in the price of the scrip as detailed in the above table. In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned WTM needs no interference. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record a number of decisions rendered by this Tribunal, wherein on fact this Tribunal has held that the delay in proceeding has caused ....