Category Archives: Blog

If any person indulges in unfair trade practices relating to securities, the monetary penalty should be imposed under 15HA of SEBI act -THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

SEBI observed some large-scale trade reversals in the stocks segment and pursuing further investigation it was found that total 2,91,744 trades comprising substantial 81.40% of all the trades were non genuine and these trades lead to creation of artificial volumes. During investigation Kasturi Aich (“Noticee”) was found indulged in execution of reversal trades in stock options segment of BSE. Adjudication proceedings initiated against the noticee for violation of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of SEBI regulation,2003. The proceeding was conducted by appointed adjudicating officer BARNALI MUKHERJEE in [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order/BM/UR/2021-22/14819]

A show cause notice was issued as to show why penalty should not be imposed under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 for the alleged violations in the notice it was alleged that Noticee had executed 2 non genuine trades in 1 Stock Options contract which resulted in artificial volume of total 50,000 units. And the investigation was conducted in response of the noticee response.

The proceedings were conducted, and it was found that the Noticee had executed non-genuine trades in stock options contract to total trades in the contract was 6.67% in the aforesaid contract and from the trade log it was found that the trades executed by the Noticee in a contract were squared up within a short span of time and the wide variations in the trades indicates that there was pre-determination in the prices by the counterparties while executing the trades. The authority relied on SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd to consider that the trades were not coincidental but were pre-planned.

From the investigation and from the trading behavior of the noticee confirms that the noticee has violated   regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 and the authority confirmed the imposition of monetary penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/-under the provisions of Section 15 HA of SEBI Act.

Click here to read the Order

Order reviewed by Naveen Sharma

The securities appellate tribunal recorded the differences between original noticee and appellate noticee – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

An adjudication order was passed against Rajesh Agarwal (original noticee) levying a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-  under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992, for violation of Section 12A (a), (b) and (c) and of Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d), as well as 4 (1), (2) (a), (e) and (g) of the SEBI regulation,2003 but the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal remitted the order for fresh consideration because the Rajesh Agarwal(appellate noticee) has submitted some different identification then the original noticee hence the difference has to be considered between the original and appellate noticee .the matter was adjudicated by MANINDER CHEEMA ADJUDICATING OFFICER in the [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order/MC/VS/2021-22/14853]

The show cause notice was sent to original noticee and to appellate noticee on the addresses provided and some enquires were conducted to know the difference and it is noted that since documents submitted to the SAT by SEBI as well as the Appellant Noticee, the Hon’ble SAT remitted the matter to the undersigned for fresh consideration after considering the Noticee response.

The issues arising before the officer is whether the Appellant Noticee is a person different from the original Noticee to which the SCN was issued and against whom the order was passed. appellate proceedings were conducted, and it occurred that certain documents were sought from Beeline Broking Ltd., the broker of the original Noticee who executed the impugned trades. These documents have been produced by the Appellant Noticee before the officer as part of papers provided to SAT. some other documents were presented and it was evident that there are irregularities in the account opening forms of RK Stockholding and Beeline brokers.

From the submissions made by the appellate noticee it was evident that  a computer resource has been used to impersonate the Noticee and use his PAN and other details to open and operate fraudulent demat and trading accounts with Beeline Broking and RK Stockholding .from the above submission the doubt is clear that  the Appellant Noticee who appeared for the hearing during adjudication proceedings leading to passing of adjudication order dated 27.08.2020 and appealed against it before the Hon’ble SAT is not the same person as the original Noticee who carried out the impugned trades.

It is clarified that the appellate noticee is a different person from the original noticee and did not carry out the impugned trades and hence there is no violation alleged against him and the said order is not applicable to the appellate noticee.

Taking into consideration the above submission the order dated 27.08.2020 levying a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the original Noticee i.e., Rajesh Agarwal continues to be applicable and not applicable to the appellant noticee.

Click here to read the Order

Order reviewed by Naveen Sharma

The Judge is not exercised discretion to allow judicial interference beyond the procedure established under the enactment, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench decision HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE. In the matter M/S LINKWELL TeleSystems PVT. LTD.VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS.[ WA No. 03/2021 ] dealt with an issue mentioned above.

This appeal, preferred by the writ petitioner, arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 09th June 2021, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23 of 2021 (M/s Linkwell Telesystems Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Sikkim & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition for reasons stated therein.

In light of the detailed discussions that have emanated supra, and in view of the obtaining facts and circumstances in the instant matter as reflected hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner has failed to put forth any exceptional circumstances for invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case So far as the subsequent award of contract to the private respondent no.3 is concerned, in the facts of this case, that cannot be the subject matter to be decided by the writ Court. Clearly, in the facts of the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner’s remedies are elsewhere.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra

The testimony of the victim was neither trustworthy nor unblemished in view of the contradictions which appear in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her deposition in Court. The Evidence and P.W.12 do not support the evidence of P.W.1 thereby indicating that her testimony is a concocted story, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench judge Hon’ble MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE. In the matter Sanjib Rai and others versus  State of Sikkim [Crl. A. No.13 of 2020  ] dealt with an issue mentioned above.

Both Appellants No.1 and 2 (for short, A1 and A2) herein were convicted vide impugned Judgment dated 22-10-2020 in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.05 of 2019, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 (ten) years, each, with fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only, each, and default clauses of imprisonment, vide impugned Order on Sentence dated 23-10- 2020, for sexually assaulting the victim.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants put forth the arguments before this Court that it was the victim who had voluntarily gone to the place of residence of A1 and A2 and also voluntarily spent nights therein. The testimony of the victim was neither trustworthy nor unblemished in view of the contradictions which appear in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her deposition in Court. The Evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.12 does not support the evidence of P.W.1 thereby indicating that her testimony is a concocted story.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case On the anvil of all the discussions that have emanated above, it thus falls to conclude that no proof whatsoever was furnished by the Prosecution to establish that offence of rape was committed by A1 and A2 on the victim, P.W.1. The acts are evidently consensual.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra