2021 (1) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t for a period of six months. By the same order, the securities of the appellant in its demat account has also been frozen for the same period. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal is, that an investigation was conducted in the scrip of Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as 'AVIL') for the period from 1st January, 2009 to 24th April, 2015. It was noticed that the price was artificially raised fraudulently through a trading pattern which was manipulative. The Whole Time Member (WTM) after considering the evidence found that 983 trades were executed by 13 entities in patch one and that the appellant acted as one of the 9 counter parties in 49 trades involving miniscule quantity of shares in each trade wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat no notice was ever served upon the appellant and, therefore, on this short ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In this regard, we find that the summons were served through affixation. This aspect has not been denied, namely, that there was no affixation or that the summons was affixed at the wrong address. We also find that at the time when the affixation was made the appellant was doing business from the same place and subsequently shifted to another place. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the appellant was duly served but chose not to appear for reasons best known to the appellant. 6. On merits, we find that out of 983 trades that were executed by 13 entities in patch one. The appellant was o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was trading either on the buy side or on the sell side with the other noticees. Thus, having common email or address with some of them is redundant in the absence of any trades being executed between them. 10. We also find that there is no finding that the appellant had any connection with the buyer, namely, Gajpal. In the absence of any connection, no collusion could be proved with regard to price manipulation or artificially increasing the price or its volume. 11. We are also of the opinion that the analogy drawn by the WTM from the decision of the Supreme Court in SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera [2016] 6 SCC 366 holding that the trading pattern of the appellant had a misleading appearance amounting to manipulation in the price of the share a....