sebi:PG/AO-25/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Charges proved; penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the Noticee for violation of regulations 4(2)(a) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4(a)
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
- Reg. 4(2)(g)
Parties
- Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Holding
The Noticee, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, being a director of Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., was held liable for aiding and abetting the Jalco Group's manipulation of price/volume in GHCL shares through synchronized/reversal/fictitious trading, in violation of regulations 4(2)(a) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed under section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
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 transfer of Mr V S Sundaresan, the undersigned has been appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide order dated November 12,
Page 4 of 25 vide notice dated June 08, 2009. However, the same was also returned undelivered with no remark. 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 the SEBI web site under the title ‘Unserved summons / notices‘. As per A.D. card received, the notice was delivered to the Noticee. However, the Noticee neither appeared nor sought adjournment. Another hearing notice dated December 04, 2009 fixing December 14, 2009 as date of hearing was sent to the Noticee by Speed Post A.D.. The same was also uploaded on SEBI web site under label captioned “Unserved summons/Notices”. However, the same was returned undelivered with remark “Left”. 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. The notice was also uploaded on SEBI website under title captioned “Unserved summons/Notices”. The Notice was delivered to the Noticee. The Noticee vide letter dated January 25, 2010 requested to hold the hearing in Delhi. Vide Notice dated April 07, 2010 the Noticee was informed that already two opportunities of hearing in Delhi had been given to the Noticee vide Notices dated June 08, 2009 and December 04, 2009. Hence, the request of the Noticee to keep the hearing in Delhi cannot be accepted. Another Hearing Notice dated April 07, 2010 was issued to the Noticee fixing April 19, 2010 as date of h
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-25/2010. 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.