TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nesh Kumar, Presiding Officer This appeal is directed against order dated October 31, 2024 passed by the AO Adjudicating Officer, SEBI Securities And Exchange Board Of India imposing a monetary penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant for violation of Regulation 3(a), (b), (c), (d), Regulation 4(1) and Regulation 4(2)(a) of SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003, 2003. 2. The delay of 40 days in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. We have heard Mr. Ram Awatar Dhoot, Authorised Representative for the appellant and Mr. Manish Chhangani, learned Advocate for the respondent. 4. Brief facts of the case are, SEBI conducted an investigation from April 1, 2014 to September 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed the impugned order 6. Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Authorised representative for the appellant submitted that: • There is an inordinate delay of more than 7 years in issuing show cause notice and also in initiating proceedings against the appellant. To support this submission, he placed reliance on Rajeev Bhanot & Anr v. SEBI Rajeev Bhanot & Anr v. Securities And Exchange Board of India, passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on September 30, 2024 in Appeal No. 396 of 2018, Mr. Rakesh Kathotia & Ors v. SEBI Mr. Rakesh Kathotia & Ors v. Securities And Exchange Board of India, passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai on May 27,2019 in Appeal No.7 of 2016, Mahamad Kavi Mahamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and SEBI. One of the alleged trades i.e., trades executed on March 9, 2015 were in the nature of intra-day buy and sell trades which were permissible and cannot be equated or termed as artificial volume. Impugned trades were genuine and took place in the normal course of a trading session. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on Nishit M Shah HUF v. SEBI Securities Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 97 of 2019, Saroj & Co. Proprietor Sanjay Agarwal v. SEBI Appeal No. 213 of 2011. • No action has been taken against the intermediaries/trading members. All deals were executed by broker. Reversal trades if any, were done by the broker. With these submissions, appellant prayed to set aside the impugned order. 7. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counter party N M Impex Pvt Ltd (first leg of the transaction). Within a short of span of one hour i.e., at 12:33:16 appellant sold 6000 units at the rate of Rs. 18.4 per unit, at 12:33:30 appellant sold 12000 units at the rate of Rs. 19.10 to the same counter party (Second leg of the transaction). Thus reversal trade took place in two installments between the same entities. 10. The appellant executed trades with the same counter party with whom he had executed the first leg of transaction i.e., reversal trades of same quantity with the same counter party in the same contract, which is not a coincidence and clearly demonstrates consensus ad idem to execute reversal trades at pre-determined price. Trades by the appellant created an artif....