2021 (3) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wherein each of them is directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs for violation of Regulation 3(a), (d), 4(2)(a) and (e) 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'). 2. The appellant no. 1 Ms. Jyoti is the wife of appellant no. 3 Satyendra while appellant no. 2 is the younger brother of appellant no. 3. The record would show that respondent SEBI had conducted investigation in the scrip of Mapro Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mapro/Company) for a period between November 20, 2013 to June 30, 2014. It was found in the investigation that during the investigation period t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant no. 3 had traded on behalf of other appellants, the adjudicating officer concluded that these being artificial trades, manipulative trading was done. The appellants however submitted that they had purchased shares of Mapro on the advice of a friend on good faith which were later on sold only to earn small profit as a small investor. The adjudicating officer observed that there was no change in the fundamentals of the company over the period yet the prices moved upwards. There was a pattern of trading and the price of the shares went up in pre-planned manner by engaging in small trades sometimes of one share each but no explanation of the same was offered. In the circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. 5. Heard Shri ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the scrip of Mapro was not a miracle scrip and taking into consideration the doubtful pattern of the trades carried out by the appellant therein this Tribunal though set aside the direction to pay penalty imposed upon the appellant therein, it was held that warning to the appellant that repetition of trading of similar nature as impugned one will lead to penal consequences. 7. As detailed supra the facts of the present appeals are exactly similar to the facts in the above case. All the appellants are small investors. They are admittedly close relatives. However, they are not found to be connected with any other parties involved are not anyway connected to the group entities as described in the appeal of Bharti Goyal. 8. In the ci....