sebi:BM/AO-136/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed totalling Rs. 15,00,000 - Rs. 5,00,000 under section 15A(a) and Rs. 10,00,000 under section 15HA
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 11C
- s. 12
- s. 54
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 3(a)
- Reg. 3(c)
- Reg. 3(b)
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
- Reg. 4(2)(e)
- Reg. 4(2)(b)
- Reg. 3(d)
Parties
- Shailesh M Ved
Holding
The Noticee violated regulations 3(a), (b), (d), 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(g) of PFUTP Regulations and sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of SEBI Act, but was not found guilty of regulation 4(2)(e) or section 11C(5). A total monetary penalty of Rs. 15,00,000 was imposed under sections 15A(a) and 15HA.
Full text
Page 2 of 19 14.50 to ` 18.25) and the price of the scrip started falling from October 17, 2006 to reach a low of ` 10.60 by November 23, 2006 at BSE. During this period no trading was observed in the scrip of NEL on ASE.
Page 3 of 19 5. In view of the above it was alleged that the Noticee violated provisions of regulations 3 (a), (b), (d), regulation 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(e) and 4(2)(g) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations). Consequently, in respect of the alleged charges, the Noticee would be liable for monetary
Page 4 of 19 i. That, he had traded in the scrip with the intention of earning some short term profit, he speculated in the said scrip and he was not aware that such kind of speculation trading can amount to any violation. ii. That he sold a property near Ahmedabad and purchased a property at Rajkot but due to some reason he never received possession of the said premises, hence he do not have any documents for purchase of property. iii. That what ever cash is received by him from Amit Mehta is against the sale of the property near Ahmedabad. iv. That he has taken loan from Krishna Capshares Pvt Ltd which was duly returned to the company and also stated that they have not entered into any loan agreement for the said loan as it was general business financial loan transaction only. v. He received ` 77 lac from Amit Mehta through cheque against the sale of the property near Ahmedabad. He admits that he is the director of Krishna Capshares Pvt ltd and the decisions of the affairs of the company are taken jointly with the other directors. With regard to the amount transferred to Mr Amit Mehta, the company Krishna Capshare had given loan to Mr Amit Mehta and he was not aware that Mr Amit Mehta did not have funds to buy his property and Mr Amit Mehta will transfer the amount received from his company. vi. ` 13 lac was transferred to his account from Amrut Securities as a loan. The noticee submits that he has transferred the amount to Ford Brothers Capital Services Ltd for the Debit b
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:BM/AO-136/2010. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.