sebi:Order/PM/VC/2020-21/9458

SEBI · SEBI · 2017-07-31 · Prasanta Mahapatra, 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

Violation established; penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed under Section 15HA

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 19
• s. 12A
• s. 15H
• s. 15J

Regulations

• Reg. 3
• Reg. 3(a)

Parties

• Mukesh Kankariya

Holding

The Noticee violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) & (e) of PFUTP Regulations by manipulating the price of MARL through small-quantity sales that established higher LTP, and is liable to a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.

Full text

Adjudication Order in respect of Mukesh Kankariya in the matter of Mahavir Advanced Remedies Limited Page 2 of 18 2. On the basis of investigation conducted by SEBI for the transactions in the scrip of MARL, it has been inter-alia alleged that, Mr. Mukesh Kankariya (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee’) had violated the provisions of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) & (e) of PFUTP Regulations. APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Adjudication Order in respect of Mukesh Kankariya in the matter of Mahavir Advanced Remedies Limited Page 3 of 18 of price movement based on the variance in quantum of trading volumes and the price movement of the scrip as below: Patches Period Price Movement Price/Volume trend From To Open High Low Close Patch-l 26/06/2013 09/04/2014 7.77 220.20 7.77 220.20 Price rise with low trading volumes Patch-l I 11/04/2014 14/07/2014 224.60 352.00 224.60 349.70 Price rise with high trading volumes Patch-Ill 15/07/2014 06/01//2015 351.00 374.10 150.65 150.65 Price fall with high trading volumes

Adjudication Order in respect of Mukesh Kankariya in the matter of Mahavir Advanced Remedies Limited Page 4 of 18 9. It was alleged in the Investigation that the Noticee had placed substantial number of sale orders involving very small quantity of shares. It was further observed that out of the 23 sell trades, 5 sell trades were placed for 1-10 shares when there were buy orders were in the range of 500-2000 shares. Further, in two trade, the sell quantity offered was in the range of 11-20 shares and in 16 trades, the sell quantity offered was 100 shares when there were buy orders in the range of 500-2000 shares. Therefore, it was alleged that by executing these trades, the Noticee had matched the prices of prevailing buy orders which were placed at a higher price than the last traded price (LTP) and thereby contributed to the increase in the scrip price with each of his trades. It was also observed that these 23 trades were entered into on 23 different trading days across the period and each trades resulted in establishing a higher LTP.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/PM/VC/2020-21/9458. 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.