sebi:WTM/RKA/IVD/ID-4/35/2012
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Show Cause Notice dated August 01, 2011 disposed of without passing any further direction against the noticee; restraint/debarment orders dated June 04, 2009 and January 25, 2010 need not continue further.
Provisions invoked
- s. 12A
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Eversight
Holding
The noticee Eversight was found to have violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations and Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act by executing synchronized trades with connected clients in the scrip of Temptation. However, considering that the noticee had already been restrained from accessing the securities market since June 4, 2009, the SCN was disposed of without passing any further direction and the earlier restraint orders were not to continue.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 market and further prohibited it from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market, directly or indirectly, till further directions. SEBI passed an order dated January 25, 2010 confirming its earlier order dated June 04, 2009.
Page 3 of 6 the trades of other entities have been erroneously clubbed with their trades in order to draw adverse inferences against them. c. Since there were no off market transfer of shares to the alleged connected clients through them and vice versa, the allegation that the shares were transferred in off market to the connected clients for the purpose of entering into reversal transactions through online market is baseless. d. They had traded during January 03, 2008 to January 05, 2009. Out of the said period of 26 months, their trades were limited to just 30 days with a very insignificant quantum i.e. their purchase quantity constituting mere 2.95% and sales 4.39% of the BSE volume during the investigation period. All their trades were delivery based and were on the market and were not in the nature of intra-day square of trades. Further, there was a time gap between their trades and trades were not continuous in nature. e. The trades in respect of 73,469 shares of Temptation which allegedly matched with Beejay Financial Services P. Ltd. were in ordinary course and executed only on 2 days i.e. July 14, 2008 and September 01, 2008. In all these trades there was time difference spanning from 3 seconds to 10 minute 11 seconds. In almost all these trades, there was quantity difference and in 3 instances there was also price difference. There is nothing in the SCN to show that these trades were reversal trades. These trades were part of their sale of 10,13,493 shares and repre
Page 4 of 6 isolated transactions spread over a long period of time and were minuscule quantities of the total trading done by them. i. As on date as a result of ex-parte order, they have undergone a ban of more than 875 days and suffered erosion in the valuation of their portfolio. Any further continuance of the directions in the circumstances would be hugely detrimental.
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/RKA/IVD/ID-4/35/2012. 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.