sebi:EAD-8/JS/NS/99/2018

SEBI · SEBI · 2017-10-25 · Jeevan Sonparote, 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

Adjudication proceedings initiated vide SCN dated July 29, 2017 disposed of without penalty; charges held not sustainable

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 15H
• s. 15J

Regulations

• Reg. 3
• Reg. 4(1)
• Reg. 3(a)

Parties

• Ms. Rashmi Kothari

Holding

The Adjudicating Officer held that the charges against Ms. Rashmi Kothari for violation of Regulation 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and Regulation 4(1), 4(2)(a), (e) of the PFUTP Regulations were not sustainable and disposed of the adjudication proceedings initiated vide SCN dated July 29, 2017.

Full text

Adjudication Order in the matter of M/s. Rajlaxmi Industries Limited Page 2 of 6 documents was provided to the noticee. Noticee was requested to complete the inspection of documents within 15 days and file her reply, if any within seven days from the date of inspection. 3.3 Accordingly, inspection of documents was conducted by the noticee on October 10,

Adjudication Order in the matter of M/s. Rajlaxmi Industries Limited Page 3 of 6 5.1 Before proceeding further, the text of the relevant provisions is quoted here- Regulation 3(a), (b),(c), (d) and Regulation 4(1), 4 (2)(a),(e) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003:

Adjudication Order in the matter of M/s. Rajlaxmi Industries Limited Page 4 of 6 5.7 It is alleged that noticee had been placing buy orders above LTP, before sell orders were placed. Further, it is alleged that noticee had failed to provide any reasonable explanation for placing such orders above LTP on 109 instances for a Company whose fundamentals did not support such price. 5.8 Noticee has contended in her reply dated June 15, 2014 to BSE that she had placed buy orders in the scrip, however shares were not available for long time. Vide her letters dated August 14, 2017, November 11, 2017 and January 13, 2017, while denying the allegations as per the aforementioned SCN, she had submitted the following: a) She was a bonafide investor. b) All transactions were executed through the normal screen based trading system of stock exchange. The matching of order in securities market was system driven process and automated. c) Shares in the scrip were purchased online by her. d) No relationship or connection with RJIL, its promoters / directors and any of the allegedly connected entities. e) She was not connected to any suspected entities who had off market connections, common directors. f) She did not have any relation or connection with the preferential allottees who had allegedly sold their shares of RJIL in the market. g) Her trading was based on basis of news and rumours in print media, electronic media, grapevines etc. and was intended to be an investment based strategy i.e. ta

Source: SecMarx — sebi:EAD-8/JS/NS/99/2018. 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.