sebi:IVD-ID6/PT-EIIL/AO/DRK/AKS/EAD-3/334/32-12
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations established; consolidated penalty of Rs 4,00,000 imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 7(2)
- Reg. 31
- Reg. 30
- Reg. 15A
- Reg. 22
- Reg. 28
Parties
- Shri Prasad Tandel
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held Shri Prasad Tandel violated Regulations 3(a), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (e) of PFUTP Regulations, Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) of SAST Regulations and Regulations 13(1) and 13(3) of PIT Regulations and imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs 4,00,000 under Sections 15HA and 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 19 2. The shares of the company are listed only on BSE. On BSE the price of the scrip rose from ` 81.00 on February 16, 2005 to ` 113.00 on March 11, 2005 during 18 trading days. Total trading volume during the period of investigation was 2,17,700 shares with an average daily trading volume of 12,095 shares. One month before the investigation period the scrip traded with the daily average volume of 2,365 shares and the price of the scrip increased from ` 61.00 on 13th January, 2005 to ` 79.50 on 9th February, 2005. One month after the investigation period the scrip traded with an average trading volume of 13,773 shares per day and the price of the scrip came down to ` 97.80 on 11th April, 2005 as against ` 110.75 on 14th March, 2005 (Decrease of 13.29% during one month after investigation period). APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
Page 3 of 19 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY 4. A Show Cause Notice (herein after referred to as ‘SCN’) dated 13.11.2009 which was issued by the previous AO was served on the noticee by “Registered Post Acknowledgement Due” in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 requiring the noticee to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against him and why penalty, if any, should not be imposed on him under Sections 15HA and 15A(b) of the SEBI Act for the alleged violations of Regulations 3 (a), 4 (1), 4 (2) (a) and (e) of PFUTP Regulations, Regulation 7(1) read with Regulation 7(2) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(1) and Regulation 13(3) of PIT Regulations. Proof of service of SCN is on record. In the said notice it was alleged that the noticee was party to circular movement of shares with a clear intention to inflate trade volumes, creating interest in the share and had aided and abetted the company, Promoter- Director in manipulation thereby defrauding the innocent investors. Further, it was also alleged that the noticee failed to make disclosures under SAST Regulations and PIT Regulations for the acquisition and disposal of shares. The noticee did not submit any reply to the aforesaid SCN. It is noted from the records that noticee’s consent application (1759/2010) was rejected by HPAC in the month of January / February 2011.
Page 4 of 19 was advised to submit a reply to the SCN on or before 15.06.2012. Proof of service is on record. However, the noticee neither submitted any reply to the SCN nor attended the hearing.
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:IVD-ID6/PT-EIIL/AO/DRK/AKS/EAD-3/334/32-12. 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.