2025 (11) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal is directed against order dated September 30, 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 Regulations 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 relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, 2003. 2. The delay of 63 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. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, SEBI conducted an investigation from April 1, 2014 to Sept....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 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 SCC 71. • SEBI has provided the investigation report which does not show the name of the appellant. Investigation was conducted against 59 entities and it does not include appellant's name of the appellant and her broker. • The illiquid stock options of BSE was a defective pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....permissible and cannot be equated or termed as artificial volume. To support 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. Shri Manish Chhangani, learned Advocate for SEBI submitted that: • Show cause notice was duly served through speed post with acknowledgement due and also digitally signed copy was emailed to the appellant. Hearing not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er 2022 scheme. With these submissions, SEBI prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. Undisputed facts of the case are, the appellant has executed buy and sell trades of same quantity within a short span of time with the same counter party in one contract. On March 26, 2015 appellant entered into buy trade at 13:21:32 (buy order of appellant was placed at 13:14:43 and counter party order was at 13:21:32) for 5500 units at rate of Rs.56.2 per unit with her counter party Mr. Vikas Jain (first leg of the transaction). Within a short of span of 25 minutes i.e., at 13:43:45 appellant sold (Sell order of appellant was at 13:43:44 and counter party order was at 13:43:45) ....