sebi:Order/RJ/PG/2021-22/14940
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Proceedings initiated; violations of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 found established against the Noticee (penalty quantum not specified in the provided text)
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15H
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
- s. 12A
- s. 11C
- s. 28A
- s. 15I(2)
- s. 15I(1)
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 9
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 3(a)
- Reg. 10
Parties
- Suraj Mal Manoj Kumar HUF
Holding
The Noticee was found to have executed 2 non-genuine reversal trades in 1 stock options contract (KARB15MAR140.00CEW2) on February 23, 2015, generating artificial volume of 1,64,000 units (6.75% of total contract volume), in violation of Regulations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of Suraj Mal Manoj Kumar HUF Page 2 of 30 HUF (hereinafter referred to as ‘Noticee’) was one of the various entities who indulged in execution of non-genuine trades in Stock Options segment of BSE during the investigation period. The dealings of the Noticee during the investigation period and the allegations against the Noticee for execution of non- genuine trades are narrated in the following paragraphs.
Adjudication Order in respect of Suraj Mal Manoj Kumar HUF Page 3 of 30 c) Thus, Noticee, through its dealing in the contract viz, “KARB15MAR140.00CEW2” during the Investigation Period, executed 2 non genuine trades and thereby allegedly generated artificial volume of 1,64,000 units which is 6.75% of the total volume traded in the said contract in the market during the Investigation Period.
Adjudication Order in respect of Suraj Mal Manoj Kumar HUF Page 4 of 30 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND HEARING 9. A Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’) bearing ref. no. PD1/AO/RLJ/PG/19894/1/2021 dated August 17, 2021 was served upon the Noticee under Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules,1995 to show cause as to why an inquiry be not held against it in terms of Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules,1995 and penalty be not imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 for the violations alleged to have been committed by it. The SCN was sent to the Noticee vide Speed Post AD and was duly served on the Noticee.
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/RJ/PG/2021-22/14940. 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.