sebi:PG/AO-16/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
No monetary penalty imposed; case disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
Parties
- M/s. Ajmera Associates Private Limited
Holding
The allegation that the Noticee violated Regulation 4(2)(a) and (e) of PFUTP Regulations and Clauses A(1), A(2), A(3) and A(4) of the Brokers Code of Conduct does not stand established, and no monetary penalty under sections 15HA and 15HB is imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 18 the dematerialization requests of shares were deliberately turned down to create artificial scarcity of floating stock in the scrip in order to manipulate the share price of the company. SEBI conducted investigation into the affairs, trading and dealings in the said scrip for the period July 01, 2003 to December 31, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘investigation period’).
Page 3 of 18 APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 4. Mr. V.S. Sundaresan was appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide order dated March 28, 2008 under section 15 I of SEBI Act read with rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge the alleged violations of the provisions of PFUTP Regulations and Brokers Regulations.
Page 4 of 18 turnover of the Mr. Prashant Narvekar in the said scrip is only 2.98% of his total turnover. ¾ we deny that the alleged price rise in the scrip is mainly due to buy order placed by us. We had effected transactions only for and on behalf of Mr. Prashant Narvekar as per his instructions, and while effecting the transactions we were neither aware of the alleged relationship between the individuals/clients/entities referred in the paragraph under reply as “the Shah Group” nor we were aware of the alleged relations between the said Mr. Prashant Narvekar and the company. ¾ We are not aware that the Buying concentration of more than 95% during the period of price rise was observed among the members referred in the paragraph under reply. ¾ it is observed that transactions for purchase of 3000 shares, i.e. 2800 shares on 3rd July 2003 and 200 shares on 7th July 2003 are alleged to be incremental trades. We would like to bring to your notice that Annexure “8” of your notice under reply reflects that we had placed only one order which had resulted into purchase of 2800 shares between 14:58:56 and 15:15:37 in the price band of 28.35 to 34.5. Thus, it is evident that the said transactions of purchase of 2800 shares was effected through the “Best Price Mechanism” as provided by the Exchange. In view thereof it cannot be stated that the said transactions were incremental in nature, or that the buy order placed by us supported the price of the scrip. ¾ We deny that the transacti
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:PG/AO-16/2010. 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.