sebi:WTM/GA/20/ISD/08/07
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Ex-parte interim directions dated April 25, 2007 against the six promoter group entities not continued
Parties
- Altar Investment
- ILAC Investment
- Dalmia Housing Finance
- Comosum Investment
- Antarctica Investment
- Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd.
Holding
The Whole-Time Member held there is prima facie no need to continue the ex-parte interim directions dated April 25, 2007 against the six GHCL promoter group entities.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 inter alia observed that “since the investigations in the matter have just commenced and the respondent Board has been alerted regarding the abnormal trading in the scrip of GHCL Ltd., we are not inclined to interfere at this stage of the proceedings”. The Hon’ble Tribunal further directed them to file their objections, if any, before SEBI as early as possible and in case these are filed within the next ten days, SEBI shall consider the same and pass an appropriate
Page 3 of 6 from D-Mat account of Carissa with one broker to D-Mat account of Carissa with another broker. ? All the transactions were genuine trade transactions of which delivery was duly made. Further, there is nothing in the transactions to suggest creation of false market or distortion of prices like financing transactions or circular trading etc. ? There was no undue profit or gain to any of the Promoters since three of the Promoters i.e., Altar Investment, ILAC Investment and Dalmia Housing Finance never traded in the shares of GHCL and two of the Promoters, viz., Comosum Investment and Antarctica Investment only purchased shares and sold nothing and there was only a minuscule change in the price of GHCL share. Therefore in the circumstances no profit or gain was made by any of the Promoter Companies. ? There is no association or linkage between the Jalco entities and promoter companies of GHCL excepting that these entities share the common office and that few of the directors thereof are common. Merely on the basis of such commonality, concerted action by the entities cannot be asserted, more importantly when there was no trading at all or minuscule trading ranging from 0.4 to .48% of the total market volume on the part of these entities. ? All the said promoter companies gave a correspondence address (H. No. 40, Pocket 6, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi) which was the office address of the statutory auditor Mr. Sanjay Jalan, of the promoter companies for the sake of oper
Page 4 of 6 3.2 During the personal hearing the promoter entities were shown copies of Form 20B filed with ROC signed by the Directors of said entities wherein the email id is given as Jalco_group@rediffmail.com which seeks to suggest that the promoter entities are part of the Jalco group. In response to this, the Advocates vide letter dated August 7, 2007 clarified that the clients’ statutory auditor’s office address was shown as one of the addresses of their clients so that he could track the investment, receipt of shares, delivery of shares etc. and maintain the required records. Apparently, the said auditor was also the Chartered Accountant for some of the Jalco Group Companies which were also apparently investment companies. The said statutory auditor had informed their clients that for the sake of his own convenience, whenever he was the Auditor/CA for any company he used to give requisite email id being Jalco_group@rediffmail.com, so that he could conveniently and at one email id alone, receive all requisite e-mails in respect of all such companies wherever he was the Auditor/CA. 4.0
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:WTM/GA/20/ISD/08/07. 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.