sebi:Order/BM/JR/2023-24/28583
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 Noticee for violation of PFUTP Regulations, 2003
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 11
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 3(a)
- Reg. 26
Parties
- Nidhi Singh
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 by executing non-genuine reversal trades in illiquid stock options at BSE, and a penalty of ₹5,00,000 was imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of Nidhi Singh in the matter of trading in Illiquid Stock Options at BSE P a g e | 2 of 20 Singh (PAN – CPWPS7287E) (hereinafter referred to as the “Noticee”) was one of the various entities who indulged in execution of reversal trades in stock options segment of BSE during the IP. Such trades were alleged to be non-genuine in nature and created false or misleading appearance of trading in terms of artificial volumes in stock options and therefore were alleged to be manipulative, deceptive in nature. In view of the same, SEBI initiated adjudication proceedings against the Noticee for alleged violation of the provisions of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations, 2003”).
Adjudication Order in respect of Nidhi Singh in the matter of trading in Illiquid Stock Options at BSE P a g e | 3 of 20 why penalty should not be imposed under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 for the violations alleged to have been committed by the Noticee.
Adjudication Order in respect of Nidhi Singh in the matter of trading in Illiquid Stock Options at BSE P a g e | 4 of 20 as 50% of the trades that happened in the said contracts were due to non-genuine trades executed by the Noticee. c) 100% of volume generated by Noticee in the above contracts was alleged to be artificial volume and further, the percentage of alleged artificial volume generated by the Noticee in the above contract to the total volume from the market in said contract was 24.43%. Therefore, the Noticee allegedly generated artificial volume in the above contracts.
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:Order/BM/JR/2023-24/28583. 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.