sebi:PKB/AO-2/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Held that the noticee engaged in manipulative cross and synchronised trades in Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. in violation of the Stock Brokers Code of Conduct
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(b)
Parties
- M. Bhiwaniwala and Co.
Holding
The noticee, as stock broker for Oasis Cine Communication Ltd., executed cross and synchronised trades constituting manipulation and creating a misleading appearance of trading and artificial price, thereby violating Clauses A(1)-A(5) and B(4)(a) of the Stock Brokers Code of Conduct.
Full text
Adjudication Order In Respect of M. Bhiwaniwala and Co. January 3, 2011 In The Matter of Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. Page 2 of 27 total traded volume in the scrip of the company at CSE, during the investigation period. The details of the said transactions are as follows:
Adjudication Order In Respect of M. Bhiwaniwala and Co. January 3, 2011 In The Matter of Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. Page 3 of 27 Regulations’) by contravening Clause A (1), A (2), A (3), A (4), A (5) and B(4)(a) of Code of Conduct stipulated in Schedule II of the said Regulations.
Adjudication Order In Respect of M. Bhiwaniwala and Co. January 3, 2011 In The Matter of Oasis Cine Communication Ltd. Page 4 of 27 high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of its business; (vi) that it had not generated any artificial price and had traded in accordance with the rates reflected in the C-STAR system of the stock exchange; (vii) that all the transactions were made in the normal course of business and as per the instructions of the clients and that the noticee had never encouraged the purchase or sale of securities with the object of generating brokerage; (viii) that the alleged violation was not intentional; (ix) that it was not a party to any fraud or manipulation and that while executing trades, it could not have discovered the pattern of trade that it was being led into; (x) that the violations committed, if at all, were minor and technical in nature; (xi) that it had earned a very small amount as brokerage and it could not said that it had traded solely with the objective of generating brokerage; (xii) that the noticee was not in operation at the time when some notices ('summons') were sent and that was the reason for non-compliance with the same; (xiii) that it had not violated any provisions or regulations of the SEBI Act, 1992.
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:PKB/AO-2/2011. 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.