sebi:SD/AO/10/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Allegations not established; matter disposed without penalty
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
Parties
- M/s Girigopal Investments Prop. Shri Yatin Shah
Holding
The allegations against M/s Girigopal Investments Prop. Shri Yatin Shah of violating Regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations do not stand established as the trades are not proved to be manipulative, and the matter is disposed accordingly without penalty.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 which did not have any correlation with the performance of the company. 3. It was alleged that one of the entities, viz., M/s Girigopal Investments Prop. Shri Yatin Shah (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee”), client of M/s Ruchiraj Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., violated the provisions of regulations 4 (1), 4 (2) (a), (b), (e) and (g) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and therefore, liable for monetary penalty under section 15HA of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
Page 3 of 9 not be held against the Noticee in respect of the violations alleged to have been committed by him. 7. The Noticee in response to the SCN sent a letter which was received on August 12, 2008 making his submissions. On considering the facts of the case, it was decided to conduct an inquiry in the matter and the noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing and accordingly was advised to attend the hearing on August 17, 2009. However, the said notice was returned undelivered. Subsequently, another hearing was sent on December 7, 2009 which also returned undelivered. Another notice was issued on April 27, 2010 advising the Noticee to appear for hearing on April 27, 2010. The Noticee sought for an extension from the said hearing. The Noticee further requested few documents vide letter dated April 30, 2010. The Noticee was further granted another hearing opportunity on July 21, 2010. However, the Noticee sought for another brief adjournment. Keeping in view the principles of Natural Justice, the Noticee was given another opportunity of hearing and was advised to appear on August 3, 2010. On the said date the Noticee attended the hearing through his authorized representative.
Page 4 of 9 c) If so, what would be the monetary penalty that can be imposed taking into consideration the factors mentioned in section 15J of SEBI Act?
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/10/2011. 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.