TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No. 423 of 2019 For the Appellant : Mr. Bhupender Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Ms Eram Quraishi and Mr. Harshad Vyas, Advocates i/b MDP & Partners ORDER Per: Dr. C.K.G. Nair 1. These four appeals have been preferred to challenge the orders of the Whole Time Member ("WTM" for convenience) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI" for convenience) dated June 04, 2019 and an addendum dated July 30, 2019. By the said order(s) the appellants, among others, have been restrained from dealing in the securities market, directly or indirectly, for a period of 4 years. 2. The order impugned in these appeals have been iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. 4. Further, it is held in the impugned order that connection between the noticees/ appellants have been established in terms of off-market transfers in the scrip, company directorships, address and through fund transfers. Accordingly, it is held in the impugned order that the three appellants Giriraj Gupta, Neetu Gupta and Rajeev Kumar Gupta received 1500 shares each off-market from All Time Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on March 29, 2014. From such off-market transfers a connection is established between the seller and the buyer on the premise that without such connection an off-market transfer is not possible and that too in shares of the same scrip from the same entity. 5. Similarly, it is held in the impugned order that the connect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Gupta HUF traded in 15 shares on three occasions combined and appellant Rajeev Kumar Ram Prasad Gupta traded on 29 occasions and in a total of 1105 shares. It was also submitted that all these details are also given in Table- 7 (pg. 13 and 14) of the order of the Adjudicating Officer dated July 31, 2019. Similarly, even the alleged LTP contribution is very insignificant in respect of these trades and in the case of the seller Neetu Gupta, no charge of LTP contribution can be attributed because a seller would always wants to sell at maximum possible rates. 7. It was also contended by the learned counsel that seven entities who have traded in similar ways have been let off with a warning by the same impugned order. Hence since the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Bohra vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 162 of 2019 decided on 05.11.2019 and Shri Lakhi Prasad Kheradi vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 232 of 2017 decided on 21.06.2018. 9. Though, we note that the appellants have raised the issue of delay, the same is not argued by the learned counsel. Hence we do not propose to go into the issue and deal with only the merit of the matter. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the impugned transactions, in the facts and circumstances of the matter, would fall in the realm of violations of PFUTP Regulations. Individual argument that each entity's trade is miniscule and only on a few days alone etc. is not sufficient to rebut the findings in the impugned order. The appellants ha....