sebi:WTM/PS/198/EFD/MAR/2016
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticees found to have indulged in fraudulent and unfair trade practices; SEBI directed to initiate enquiry/investigation to reconcile facts and figures and issue show cause notice before determining disgorgement; no penalty imposed in this order.
Provisions invoked
- s. 12A
- s. 11
- s. 15H
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 2(c)
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Dipak J. Panchal
- Devangi D. Panchal
Holding
The noticees Dipak J. Panchal and Devangi D. Panchal were found to have indulged in fraudulent and unfair trade practices in violation of section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act and regulations 3(a)-(d) and 4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. However, disgorgement was deferred and SEBI was directed to first reconcile the facts and figures through an enquiry/investigation and issue a fresh show cause notice before determining disgorgement.
Full text
Page 2 of 17 2. In view of certain discrepancies in facts/contentions are noticed in the impugned order, counsel on both sides state that without recording any reason, impugned order be quashed and set aside qua the appellants herein and the matter be remanded back for passing fresh order on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside qua the appellants and restored to the file of Whole Time Member of SEBI for passing fresh order on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say, Whole Time Member of SEBI would pass fresh order after considering the reply filed by appellants and also arguments that may be advanced by the counsel for appellants at the personal hearing. Whole Time Member of SEBI is directed to pass fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today. ……….”
Page 3 of 17 SCN and the actual photocopy of the documents and therefore the veracity of the relied upon documents were doubted. The following submissions were also made:
Page 4 of 17 (c) The noticees stated that it is trite law that inspection of original documents, additional documents on which charges are alleged, cross examination etc., must precede the reply of the noticees and personal hearing. The noticees requested that in case SEBI was not agreeable for supply of additional documents as sought by them, then they should be intimated so that they could challenge the refusal before the appropriate forum.
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/198/EFD/MAR/2016. 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.