Revokes ban on 217-entities involved in Pyramid Saimira's share manipulation; Refers RBI Report
SEBI disposes proceedings, revokes ban / trading restrictions imposed on 217 entities vide an interim order (passed in 2009) for their role in market manipulation shares of Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd. ('PSTL'); Observes that "investigation did not reveal any trading in securities market by these entities, particularly in the scrip of PSTL", states that prohibition need not continue as entities have "undergone various periods of prohibition since April 23, 2009 (ranging from two-and-a-half to more than five years)"; Refers RBI Report which states that "there was no prima facie evidence of all or some of the transactions having been orchestrated by the list of 230 persons listed in SEBI Order with a view to camouflage their sole beneficial ownership of the funds and the income by their deployment through the intermediate sham accounts", and states that there is no further purpose in issuing show cause notice to these entities at this stage:SEBI
Restrains sub-syndicate member for 4-years, observes IPO-bid manipulation & fraudulent trade practices
SEBI upholds its interim order passed against Rikhav Securities Ltd. ('Noticee'), who acted as sub-syndicate member in an IPO, restrains it from acting as syndicate/sub-syndicate member for 4 years, observes grave market manipulation & fraudulent trade practices; Holds that Noticee inflated IPO-bid book by initially placing large orders on applicants' behalf and then withdrawing bids which contributed towards manipulating price at highest price band, holds that such act 'induced innocent investors' to subscribe the IPO; Rejects Noticees contention that it had very limited and 'clerical' role as sub-syndicate member to play in IPO process, observes that appointment letter of Noticee contains specific clause which states that Noticee will make good any defaults of its clients/investors and holds that an onerous responsibility is casted on Noticee and that the role is not 'mechanical' / 'clerical'; Relies on SAT Ruling in Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v A.O., SEBI, which held that "in respect of the requirement of mens rea, it is observed that fraudulent or manipulative trade practices in securities market can be proved on the basis of 'preponderance of probability' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt' and states that mens rea's proof in manipulation cases need not be direct, but can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; Also relies on SC Ruling in N. Narayanan v. Adjudicating Officer SEBI, and holds that Noticee's conduct is without doubt, detrimental to safety & integrity of securities market and observes that cogent / convincing event trail conclusively establish charges of manipulation, which is not expected from SEBI registered intermediary as it threatens integrity of Indian securities market:SEBI
Upholds SEBI AO's penalty order for Takeover code non-compliance; Rejects 'non-functional' SE defense
SAT dismisses appeal, upholds SEBI Adjudicating Officer's (SEBI AO) order for penalising Appellant Co. (Listed Co.) for failing to make annual disclosures under SEBI Takeover Code; Rejects appellant's contention that since Delhi / U. P. Stock Exchanges on which its shares were listed were non-functional, making disclosures would have been inconsequential, states that "whether the trading had taken place or not once it is accepted that there is violation of Regulation of 8(3), then the appellants cannot escape penal liability"; Holds that filing of suo-moto consent applications, that too after a decade, will not 'enhance' Appellant Co.'s case and Appellant Co. cannot escape penal liability in any case; Relies on its observations in Comfort Fincap Ltd. vs. SEBI:SAT
Slaps Rs. 1Cr. penalty for non-compliance of summons & non-furnishing of information
SEBI imposes penalty of Rs.1 Crore on noticee for failing to furnish information w.r.t. trading in scrip of SEL Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ('SEL') and his relationship with SEL and SEL's directors/ promoters; Observes that "even though these two summonses were served on the Noticee, the Noticee neither appeared before the IA nor produced books of accounts / documents / reports / information / records to the IA which resulted in violation of the provisions of Section 11C(3) and Section 11C(5) of the SEBI Act"; States that non-compliance of summonses and consequent non-furnishing of information hampers investigation and acts as severe handicap in arriving at just and reasonable conclusion by Investigating Authority ('IA') within reasonable period of time; Relies on SAT observations in Asian Films Production and Distribution Ltd. Vs SEBI which held that "...Non-compliance with the summons is, indeed, a serious matter and cannot be viewed lightly……. Market players who do not cooperate with the regulator in the matter of investigations commit a serious wrong which can have serious repercussions in the market":SEBI
Ramalinga Raju challenges verdict; Sebi under fire over IPO-bottleneck; HC breather for Hyundai in CCI matter |
Ramalinga Raju challenges verdict; Sebi under fire over IPO-bottleneck; HC breather for Hyundai in CCI matter |
For subscriptions, please contact: sales@lawstreetindia.com |
Quashes FEMA Tribunal order; No obligation to preserve documents for 'belated' enquiries |
HC quashes Foreign Exchange Appellate Tribunal's ('AT') order, whereby appellant Xerox Modi Corp. was penalised for failure to submit exchange control copies for import transactions to authorized dealer, terms it a violation of natural justice principles; Observes that order was passed without informing appellant about the communications between adjudicating authority & authorised dealer & without providing it with incriminating material, holds "it was the primary obligation of the adjudicating authority to place all incriminating material – which was intended to be relied upon to condemn the appellants and penalize them in a quasi-criminal proceedings…"; Notes that impugned transactions pertained to period December 1993 to 1996 and show cause notice was issued in 2002, accepts appellant's stand that documents for such transactions were not preserved, holds adjudicating authority's enquiry to be 'highly belated', states "even though there is no period of limitation prescribed therefor.. for such delays, the noticee cannot be made to suffer and the circumstance pleaded by the noticee that the documents have not been preserved or are not available would have to be given due weightage"; Also observes that appellant had placed sufficient proof to show utilization of those remittances, states "even on merits, appellants had raised substantial defence to raise sufficient doubt…", and points out that proceedings under FEMA, being quasi criminal in character, adjudicating authority should have made out a case beyond all reasonable doubt; Relies on SC observations in Shanti Prasad v. Director of Enforcement and M/s Bareily Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors:Delhi HC |
The ruling was delivered by Justice Vipin Sanghi. Appellant was represented by Advocates Vijay Nair and Neeharika Aggarwal while respondent was represented by Advocates Vineet Malhotra, Vishal Gohri and Jitender. |
[LSI-431-HC-2015-(DEL)] Click here to read facts, analysis and the copy of judgement. Click here to post your comment. |
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment