sebi:SPL/AO/SKS/SG/DCR/06/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed on the noticee for fraudulent and unfair trade practices
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
Parties
- Shri Rameshchandra Kesharimal Jain
Holding
The noticee was found to have violated Regulation 4(1) and 4(2)(a), (b) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 by indulging in circular/reversal/fictitious trading with Shri Madhusudan C Thakkar in the scrip of Shalimar Production Limited, and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 was imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 28 2. It was alleged that Shri Rameshchandra Kesharimal Jain (hereinafter referred to as “the noticee”) along with another client namely Shri Madhusudan C Thakkar indulged in circular / reversal/ fictitious trading which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities and did not result in to effective transfer of beneficial ownership thus instrumental in creating artificial volumes in the scrip which distorted market equilibrium of the scrip by which the noticee had violated the provisions of Regulation 4(1) and 4(2) (a), (b), and (g) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and therefore, liable for monetary penalty under sections 15A(b) and 15HA of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
Page 3 of 28 Regulation 4(1) and 4(2) (a), (b) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations. The said SCN was sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and the service of the same is available on record.
Page 4 of 28 c. With regard to point ‘c’, Annexure – H is the details of Saudas in Shalimar Production Limited relying on which the show cause notice was issued. d. With regard to point ‘d’, please note that show cause notice had been issued based on the investigation report of SEBI. In view of the fact that report submitted by BSE has not been relied upon and the fact that the report submitted by BSE is not relevant to you the same is not being provided to you. e. With regard to point ‘e’, please note that a copy of full investigation report has already been provided to you as Annexure to the show cause notice along with the Annexure that is relevant to you which is Annexure – H. f. With regard to point ‘f’, please note that show cause notice had been issued based on the investigation report of SEBI. In view of the fact that reports submitted by NSDL or CDSL have not been relied upon to issue show cause notice and the fact that those reports are not relevant to you the same are not being provided to you. g. With regard to query of the noticee regarding filing of application under consent, the following clause is included as last para in the aforesaid letter: “Vide Circular no. EFD/ED/Cir‐1/2007 dated April 20, 2007 (available at www.sebi.gov.in), SEBI has come out with guidelines for passing of consent orders. If you wish to avail the consent process, you may apply in the prescribed fo
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:SPL/AO/SKS/SG/DCR/06/2010. 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.