sebi:PG/AO-24/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation of regulation 4(2)(a) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations established; penalty imposed under section 15HA of SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4(a)
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
- Reg. 4(2)(g)
Parties
- Manohar Ram
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that the Noticee, as a director of Carissa, JFPL and Wilful, aided and abetted the Jalco Group entities in creating artificial volume and impacting the price of GHCL shares through synchronized, reversal and fictitious trading, thereby violating regulations 4(2)(a) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations.
Full text
Page 2 of 25 2. The role of the brokers and their clients who had traded in the scrip was scrutinized. It was alleged that Carissa Investment Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Carissa”), Darpan Garden Exports Private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Darpan”), Jalco Financial Service Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “ Jalco/ JFPL”), Pathik Merchandise Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Pathik”) and Wilful Finance and Investment Co Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Wilful”), which belong to the same group viz. Jalco Group (hereinafter referred to as ‘Jalco Group’), had indulged in synchronization of deals/reversal trading/fictitious trading in the shares of GHCL in such a manner that led to creation of artificial volume and impacted the price of the scrip.
Page 3 of 25 the provisions of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations. Consequent to transfer of Mr V S Sundaresan, the undersigned has been appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide order dated November 12,
Page 4 of 25 8. Another opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee on July 06, 2009 vide notice dated June 08, 2009. However, the same was also returned undelivered with remarks “refused”. Another hearing notice dated August 12, 2009 fixing August 26, 2009 as date of hearing was issued to the Noticee. The same was also uploaded on SEBI web site under label captioned “Unserved summons/Notices”. However, the same was also returned undelivered with remarks “refused”. Another hearing notice dated December 04, 2009 fixing December 14, 2009 as date of hearing was issued to the Noticee. The same was also uploaded on SEBI web site under label captioned “Unserved summons/Notices”. However, the same was also returned undelivered with remark “refused “. Another hearing notice dated January 05, 2010 fixing January 27, 2010 as date of hearing was sent to the Noticee through Northern Regional Office of SEBI. As the Noticee was not available at the last known address, the same was affixed. The notice was also uploaded on SEBI website under label captioned “Unserved summons/Notices”. Another opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee on April 19, 2010 vide Notice dated April 06, 2010. The same was also published in the Newspaper “Hindustan Times” and was also posted on SEBI web site under label captioned “Unserved Summons/Notices”. The notice was returned undelivered. However, the Noticee vide fax dated April 10, 2010 requested to reschedule the hearing after 20 days and also s
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-24/2010. 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.