sebi:CO/33/ISD/09/2004
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Order issued under Section 4(3), Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 11 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992; Indu Mehta held liable for insider trading; Vijay Mehta and MCML exonerated on insider trading charge; charges against MCML on retrospective application of Sections 11(4) and 11B rejected
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 4(3)
- s. 11
- s. 11(4)
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 3(i)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 18
Parties
- Mefcom Capital Markets Limited
- Vijay Mehta
- Indu Mehta
Holding
Indu Mehta was found to have indulged in insider trading in violation of Regulation 3(i) of the Insider Trading Regulations, 1992 by trading in MCML scrip through her proprietary concern MSSB while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information regarding the rights-cum-public issue. Vijay Mehta was not held liable as no material attributed MSSB's trades to his directions, and MCML was not held liable as it cannot be an insider in respect of itself and had not dealt in its own shares.
Full text
Home » Enforcement » Orders » Orders of Chairman/Members Enforcement Enforcement▼ Order against Mefcom Capital Markets Limited Sep 21, 2004 | Orders : Orders of Chairman/Members CO/33/ISD/09/2004 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Submissions of Vijay Mehta 1. On page 2 of the show cause notice mentions that Vijay Mehta, Indu Mehta, MCML, MSSB, MSLMAIL, and MFCMSPL taken as a whole are referred to as Mefcom Group the word Mefcom Group have never been used and all observations, revelations, accusations and allegations have proceeded to indict only Indu Mehta and her pr concern viz. MSSB. SEBI is presuming involvement of MCML and Vijay Mehta in the affairs of MSSB, which presumptions was not maintainable. Vijay Mehta as MCML was not responsible for the operational activities such as buy and selling by MSSB or for conduct before statutory bodies such as Income Tax, Stock Exchange
Submissions of Indu Mehta 1. The show cause notice has been issued in pursuance of an anonymous complaint and the complainant has not provided any evidence in support of his allegations. S given her an opportunity to cross examine the complainant or forwarded material that establishes the charges against her.
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:CO/33/ISD/09/2004. 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.