sebi:SD/AO/03/2012
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations proved; total monetary penalty of Rs 10,00,000 imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 15
Parties
- M/s Ess Ess Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd.
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(a), (b), (e), (g) and (n) of the PFUTP Regulations and Clauses A(1), A(2), D(1), D(4) and D(5) of the Code of Conduct and was held liable to a penalty of Rs 9,00,000 under Section 15HA and Rs 1,00,000 under Section 15HB, totalling Rs 10,00,000.
Full text
Page 2 of 12 manner that led to creation of artificial volumes in the scrip and was designed to create a false market and distorted market equilibrium leading to spurt in the price of the scrip which did not have any correlation with the performance of the company.
Page 3 of 12 6. Accordingly, a notice to show cause dated June 20, 2008 under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules was issued to the Noticee asking it to show cause as to why an enquiry should not be held against it in terms of Section 15I of the SEBI Act and penalty be not imposed under Section 15HA and 15HB of the SEBI Act for the alleged violation by it of the abovementioned provisions of the PFUTP Regulations and the Broker Regulations.
Page 4 of 12 Whether the Noticee has violated Regulation 4 (1) and 4 (2) (a), (b), (e),(g) and (n) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003?
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:SD/AO/03/2012. 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.