sebi:WTM/PS/17/IVD/ID-10/MAY/2012
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Certificate of registration (SEBI Registration nos. INB 020109419 and INS 011445116) suspended for a period of two months, effective on expiry of twenty one days from the date of the order
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 5(1)
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 15(1)(b)
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 28(1)
- Reg. 38(2)
Parties
- M/s Rajendra Jayantilal Shah
Holding
The noticee was held guilty of aiding and abetting its client V & S Intermediaries in executing fictitious synchronized reversal trades in the scrip of Adani in violation of the PFUTP Regulations and the broker/sub-broker Code of Conduct, and its certificates of registration were suspended for two months.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 3. SEBI analyzed the trading details along with the data of the volumes contributed by the persons who had traded in the scrip. Investigation inter alia revealed that M/s Rajendra Jayantilal Shah (hereinafter referred to as the ‘noticee’), a broker of the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange (SEBI Registration no. INB 020109419) and a sub-broker of ASE Capital Markets Limited (SEBI Registration no. INS 011445116) had traded in the scrip of Adani for its client namely V & S Intermediaries (hereinafter referred to as ‘VSI’) on BSE. The investigation prima facie found that the noticee had aided and abetted its clients in executing fictitious synchronized reversal of trades, which in turn had created the artificial volumes and contributed to the price rise in the scrip of Adani.
Page 3 of 9 II of the Regulation 7 of the Broker Regulations and Clause A(1),(2) and D(1),(4) and (5) of the Code of Conduct for Sub-brokers under Schedule II of Regulation 15(1)(b) of the Broker Regulations. However, he recommended no punitive action against the noticee as adjudication penalty was already imposed upon it for the same set of violations.
Page 4 of 9 - More than seven years have elapsed and he does not have the records of the case and hence unable to comment upon the same. - In respect of the very same transaction, an adjudication order has already been passed whereby the penalty has been levied upon him. Therefore, there cannot be several penalties for the same violation.
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/PS/17/IVD/ID-10/MAY/2012. 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.