sebi:IVD-ID6/SS-EIIL/AO/DRK/AKS/EAD-3/330/28-12
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Ex-parte penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on the noticee under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Shri Kalpesh Babaraya
Holding
The noticee violated Regulations 3(a), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (e) of the PFUTP Regulations by being party to circular movement of shares to inflate volumes and aid the Promoter-Director in manipulation, and is liable to a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 16 2. The shares of the company are listed only on Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘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 16 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 Section 15HA of the SEBI Act for the alleged violations of Regulations 3 (a), 4 (1), 4 (2) (a) and (e) of PFUTP Regulations. In the said SCN 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. The noticee did not submit any reply to the aforesaid SCN.
Page 4 of 16 Another opportunity of hearing was granted to the noticee on 24.07.2010 at 11:00 am vide hearing notice dated 14.07.2010 to appear for hearing at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai. The said notice was sent for affixture at the last known address of the noticee but affixture was not allowed as the office had shifted. Subsequently the SCN and all the hearing notices were hosted on the SEBI website under the heading “Unserved Summons / Notices”. Further, the noticee was granted a final opportunity of hearing on 26.11.2012 at 11:00 am at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai. The said opportunity was provided through a newspaper advertisement which was published on 26.10.2012 in The Times of India. However, the noticee failed to appear for the hearing without providing any reasons.
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/SS-EIIL/AO/DRK/AKS/EAD-3/330/28-12. 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.