sebi:WTM/PS/55/IVD/ID-3/MARCH/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Restrained the noticee from buying, selling or dealing in securities market or accessing the securities market, directly or indirectly, for a period of one year from the date of the order.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 11(4)
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 3
Parties
- M/s. Sunil Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd.
Holding
The noticee, M/s. Sunil Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd., violated Regulations 3, 4(a), (b), (c), (d) and 6(a) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 by conniving with Fintrade and JSL to artificially create volumes and move prices of scrips HCL and PSIL, and is restrained from accessing the securities market for one year.
Full text
Page 2 of 8 3. ASE reported total volume in the scrip of PSIL as 44,600 during March 01, 2002 to September 30, 2002 and 11,73,310 during January 01, 2003 to July 24, 2003. Price of the scrip of PSIL went up from Rs.112 on March 27, 2002 to Rs.350 on July 18, 2002. There was a stock split in the scrip of PSIL from Rs.10 – Rs.2. Thereafter again, the price of the scrip went up to Rs.107.75 on September 06, 2002. Further the price of the scrip fell to Rs.3 on July 24, 2003 on ASE, on this day the scrip was suspended for trading. During the second period of investigations in the scrip of PSIL i.e. January 01, 2003 – July 24, 2003, ASE reported that only one of its member viz. M/s Jaisharefin Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘JSL’), was dealing in the scrip and thereby raising the traded volumes in the scrip with corresponding fall in the prices of the scrip.
Page 3 of 8 were found to be punched from the same terminal of JSL. The major findings of the inspection were: i. Similar modus operandi adopted for trading in HCL and PSIL.
Page 4 of 8 6. On completion of the investigations, SEBI inter-alia issued Show Cause Notice dated April 05, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’) to the noticee herein under Sections 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 11 of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. The SCN alleged that the noticee had entered transactions which do not appear to be according to sound market practices. The SCN, therefore, alleged that the acts of the noticee were in violation of the Regulations 3, 4 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 6 (a) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’). Accordingly, it called upon the noticee to show cause as to why suitable directions under Section 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act read with Regulation 11 of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 including restraining him from accessing the capital market in securities should not be issued.
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/55/IVD/ID-3/MARCH/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.