2021 (4) TMI 1402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the order dated June 22, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'AO') of Securities & Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') whereby a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs each has been imposed for violation of Regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFUTP Regulations'). The finding is that the appellants during the period June 19, 2008 to March 20, 2009 made misleading appearance of trading in the scrip of BGIL Films and Technologies Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BGIL') thereby manipulating the price of the scrip by indulging in synchronize....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... buyer and the appellant No. 2 executed 1,03,165 synchronized trades on 25 trades on 9 trading days. 5. The AO also found that the trades executed by the appellant No. 1 created a positive LTP of Rs. 32.05 as a buyer and as a seller and that the appellant No. 2 by synchronized trades created a positive LTP of Rs. 74.30 both as a buyer and as a seller. 6. The AO also came to the conclusion on the basis of examination of trades that the appellants had also executed self-trades thereby creating artificial volumes giving false and misleading appearance of trades in the scrip of the company. The appellant No. 1 had executed 23,596 self trades and the appellant No. 2 executed 8,947 self trades. 7. We have heard Ms. Rinku Valanju, the lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here is no doubt that the transactions took place in 2008-09 and that the show cause notice was issued in the year 2017. There is a delay in the issuance of the show cause notice. But this delay has been validly explained by the respondent. We find that the appellants had acquired shares offline and investigating the offline shares took a considerable period of time. Further, synchronized trades with 22 entities also involved a detailed and time consuming investigation which became another factor for the delay in the issuance of the show cause notice. Considering the aforesaid, we are satisfied that there was no undue delay or laxity on the part of the respondent in the issuance of the show cause notice. We are further of the opinion that t....