sebi:EAD/PM-AA/AO/31/2017-18

SEBI · SEBI · 2017-12-14 · Prasanta Mahapatra, Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Disposed of without imposition of any penalty

Provisions invoked

• s. 15I
• s. 15G

Regulations

• Reg. 3(i)
• Reg. 11
• Reg. 12
• Reg. 12(2)

Parties

• Mehmood Vaid

Holding

The Show Cause Notice dated December 14, 2017 alleging violation of Regulation 3(i) of PIT Regulations, 1992 read with Regulation 12(2) of PIT Regulations, 2015 by Shri Mehmood Vaid is disposed of without imposition of any penalty, as no UPSI existed at the time of the Noticee's sale of 3,750 shares of MCX between March 11, 2013 and June 26, 2013.

Full text

Adjudication Order in respect of Mehmood Vaid in the matter of MCX Page 2 of 8 days and impending payment defaults by the members of NSEL and loss of reputation of Promoters and Management of MCX. It was observed that any news impacting business of NSEL will automatically impact share price of its holding company (i.e. FTIL) and associate companies (i.e. MCX) and any news impacting credentials of Promoters and Management of FTIL, NSEL and MCX will also impact the share price of MCX, therefore suspension of trading by NSEL was a negative news. As per the Investigating Authority, the UPSI came into existence on April 27, 2012, upon the issuance of the SCN to NSEL, by the DCA and it ceased to exist when NSEL suspended trading in all contracts (except e-series contracts) and deferred settlement of all pending contracts on July 31, 2013.

Adjudication Order in respect of Mehmood Vaid in the matter of MCX Page 3 of 8 1992 read with Regulation 12(2) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “PIT Regulations, 2015”). APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Adjudication Order in respect of Mehmood Vaid in the matter of MCX Page 4 of 8 Report by the IVD department of SEBI based on which allegations against our client were levelled.  A detailed reply dated August 24, 2017 was filed denying all the allegations levelled against our client in the Interim Order. An Order dated January 5, 2018 was passed by the Whole Time Member ("WTM") of the SEBI in favour of our client ("the WTM Order"), in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act and regulation 11 of PIT, 1992 read with Regulation 12 of PIT, 2015. Vide the WTM Order, the learned WTM had revoked the directions issued against our client and disposed of the Interim

Source: SecMarx — sebi:EAD/PM-AA/AO/31/2017-18. 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.