sebi:SD/AO/58/2010
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 PFUTP Regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(a),(b),(e),(g) held proved; monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed under section 15HA of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Shri Deepak Todkar
Holding
The Noticee, Shri Deepak Todkar, was held to have violated Regulation 4(1) and Regulation 4(2)(a),(b),(e) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations by participating in synchronized/structured trades as part of the Ajit Suryavanshi group, creating artificial volume and influencing the price of VTL scrip, and a monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 was imposed under section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 10 3. It was alleged that one of the entities, viz., Shri Deepak Todkar (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee”), client of M/s UTI Securities 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 10 not be held against the noticee in respect of the violations alleged to have been committed by him. 7. It is noted that noticee has not filed any reply in response to the said show cause notice. 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 18, 2007. The Noticee failed to appear for the hearing before the undersigned. In consonance with the principles of natural justice, another hearing was accorded to the Noticee on May 14, 2010. The Noticee failed to appear even in second hearing.
Page 4 of 10 deals and created artificial volume and influenced the price of the scrip. 10. It is observed from the Investigation Report (“IR”) that Noticee was part of one Ajit Suryavanshi group. It has been observed in the IR that on analysis of the KYC of the Noticee with its broker it is seen that the Noticee shares common phone number with few other entities of the group and the said phone number is in the name of One Mahesh Mistry and the address of the said phone connection is same as that of Ajit Suryavanshi and 3 other entities of the same group. Thus, it has been alleged that the Noticee is a part of the Ajit Suryavanshi group. It is observed that the trading done by the group was split amongst 9 entities and these entities were acting in tandem to create artificial volume and rise in price of the scrip. Thus the Noticee’s role is to be analyzed as part of the group rather than treating him as an individual.
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/58/2010. 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.