sebi:VSS/AO-140/2009
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 sections 11C(2), 11C(3), 11C(5) of SEBI Act and regulation 8(1) of PFUTP held established and monetary penalty of Rs.1,00,000 imposed under section 15A(a); violation of regulations 3, 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e), (g) of PFUTP held not established with no penalty under section 15HA.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 11C
- s. 12
- s. 11C(2)
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 8(1)
Parties
- M/s Shree Nidhi Trading Co Limited
Holding
The Noticee violated sections 11C(2), 11C(3), 11C(5) of the SEBI Act and regulation 8(1) of PFUTP by failing to comply with three summonses and is liable to penalty under section 15A(a). The allegation of manipulative trading under regulations 3, 4(1) and 4(2)(a), (b), (e), (g) of PFUTP was held not established.
Full text
Page 2 of 12 India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”) and violated regulation 8(1) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP”) and consequently, liable for monetary penalty under section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
Page 3 of 12 6. The Noticee replied to the said SCN vide letter dated September 24, 2008 denying all the allegations. In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry in terms of rule 4(3) of the Rules, the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on March 18, 2009, vide notice dated February 17, 2009 at SEBI, ERO, Kolkata. Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, Authorized Representative of the Noticee (hereinafter referred to as “AR”) appeared on behalf of the Noticee. The AR submitted that the Noticee had not traded in the scrip of SNTL and had no relationship whatsoever with the entities which had traded in the scrip of SNTL. The AR also submitted that since the Noticee had no role to play in the trading of the scrip of SNTL, it believed that it need not respond to the summonses issued as part of the investigation in the trading and dealing in the scrip of SNTL.
Page 4 of 12 11C. Investigation (3). The Investigating Authority may require any intermediary or any person associated with securities market in any manner to furnish such information to, or produce such books, or registers, or other documents, or record before him or any person authorized by it in this behalf as it may consider necessary if the furnishing of such information or the production of such books, or registers, or other documents, or record is relevant or necessary for the purposes of its investigation.
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:VSS/AO-140/2009. 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.