TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclined to pass order of discharge. 2. Background facts : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI Board for short), commenced investigation into the unusual price movements of the scrip of Mega Corporation Ltd, the Applicant Company, - Company, during the period during the period 25th January, 2005 to 16th September, 2005. Based on the finding in the investigation, the board charged the company with manipulating the market in its shares by several means. Board issued show cause notice dated 10th October, 2007 alleging that the Applicant-company sought to generate investor interest in the scrip by publishing false and misleading announcement in the press about the company'ss prospects and business plans which projected unduly high reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in concert with each other in order to have unlawful gain and indulged in prior manipulation, artificial, market creation. Thus, all the accused violated Regulation 3(a) (b) (c) and (d) and 4(1)(2)(k)(r) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 1995 and 3(i)(ii) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trader) Regulations, 1992. (ii) The Accused No.1-Company failed to follow the normal accounting practices and provided misleading information in the balance-sheet. (iii) That whole time directors i.e. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the Company were responsible for making misleading announcement, declaring inflated and manipulated financial results and providing misleading information to SEBI. 4. On 27th Septe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate Tribunal, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 27th March, 2019 admitted the appeal; but application for stay was dismissed. Learned Counsel in support of his submission would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of W.B. (2011) 3 SCC 581. 9. In the case in hand, Applicants have been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings on the allegations for which, they have been prosecuted by the SEBI. In the case of K.C. Builders (2004) 2 SCC 731; the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a view that when there is categorical finding in the adjudication proceedings exonerating the person, it is binding and conclusive and thus, the Prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. In the case of Radheysh....