sebi:EAD/KS/AA/AO/147-148/2018-19
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 on Noticees for fraudulent and unfair trade practices in the scrip of Kavveri Telecom Products Ltd.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 12A
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 24
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- M/s Antala Real Broking & Impex Private Limited (Noticee 1)
- M/s Vishu Enterprises (Noticee 2)
- Sajjankumar Nanwal
- Sunitadevi Sajjan Nanwal
- Govind Kumar Varma
- M/s Dhirajlal Sanghvi HUF
- Sagar Dhirubhai Sanghvi
- Ashik Dhirajlal Sanghvi
- Babubhai Desai
Holding
The Noticees were held to have violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations by executing synchronised and reversal trades among connected group entities, creating artificial volume, and indulging in price rise through LTP, New High Price and first trades of the day in the scrip of Kavveri Telecom Products Ltd.
Full text
Page 2 of 42 Kumar Varma (hereinafter referred to as ‘Govind’), M/s Dhirajlal Sanghvi HUF (hereinafter referred to as ‘Dhirajlal), Shri Sagar D. Sanghvi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sagar’), Shri Ashik D. Sanghvi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ashik’) and Shri Babubhai Desai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Babubhai’) were involved in trading among themselves in the scrip of Kavveri. The average volume of shares traded in the scrip of Kavveri during the IP increased to 1,13,833 shares from 76,302 shares in the immediate 3 – month period before the start of IP. The average volume of shares traded decreased to 1,00,062 in the immediate quarter after the IP.
Page 3 of 42 4. SEBI observed from investigation that the trades by the Noticees created artificial volume in the scrip of Kavveri leading to false and misleading appearance of trading in the said scrip and also contributed to artificial price rise in the said scrip, which were deemed to be fraudulent. In view of the same, SEBI initiated adjudication proceedings against the Noticees under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’) for the violation of Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d), 4 (1), 4 (2) (a), (b), (e) and (g) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’).
Page 4 of 42 (1) of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adjudication Rules’) to show-cause as to why an inquiry should not be initiated against the Noticees and penalty not be imposed upon them under section 15HA of SEBI Act for the alleged violation of PFUTP Regulations.
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:EAD/KS/AA/AO/147-148/2018-19. 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.