sebi:ORDER/SRP/MCS/2018-19/1625-1626

SEBI · SEBI · 2018-08-03 · Satya Ranjan Prasad, 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

Penalty imposed on Noticees for violation of PFUTP Regulations

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 12A
• s. 15H
• s. 15J
• s. 15F

Regulations

• Reg. 4
• Reg. 3
• Reg. 200
• Reg. 3(a)

Parties

• Mrs. Sudha Sharma
• Mr. Abhishek Sharma

Holding

The Adjudicating Officer held that Noticees Mrs. Sudha Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, along with Group Entities, violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations by executing synchronized trades that created artificial volumes in the scrip of Kaveri Seed Company Limited, and imposed penalties of Rs. 8,00,000 on Mrs. Sudha Sharma and Rs. 2,00,000 on Mr. Abhishek Sharma under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.

Full text

Adjudication Order in the matter of Kaveri Seed Company Limited Page 2 of 27 the scrip of KSCL at NSE and BSE and thereby created artificial volumes in the scrip and their trades were designed to create alleged false market in the scrip.

Adjudication Order in the matter of Kaveri Seed Company Limited Page 3 of 27 the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”).

Adjudication Order in the matter of Kaveri Seed Company Limited Page 4 of 27  It is submitted that the Noticee Mr. Abhishek Sharma is the son of the Noticee Mrs. Sudha Sharma. They have opened the demat account with M/s. Sushil Finance Consultants Ltd. and they have done trading as per the Rules and Regulations of the Stock Exchanges. It is submitted that the Noticees have not done any fraudulent trading or deliberate synchronized trading or created any misleading appearance of trading leading to contravention of SEBI PFUTP Regulations and all the transactions were as per the norms of trading and there was never any intention to carry on synchronized trading. It was further submitted that there were no artificial or fictitious trades dealt by them or there was any allegation that the transactions were not at the current market price which goes to show that the transactions would not affect the price movement thus it does not tantamount to violation under the PFUTP Regulations. There was no intention to hike the price and all the trades executed in the said scrip were purely based on commercial terms.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:ORDER/SRP/MCS/2018-19/1625-1626. 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.