sebi:WTM/TCN/ID-3/90/03/2008
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Proceedings initiated against YSIL (now amalgamated with Merrygold Investment Ltd.) disposed without any directions; no directions required to be issued
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 394
- s. 391(2)
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 8
Parties
- Yellow Saphire Investment Ltd.
- Merrygold Investment Ltd.
Holding
The proceedings initiated against Yellow Saphire Investment Ltd., now amalgamated with Merrygold Investment Ltd., were disposed without any directions, holding YSIL not guilty of violating Regulation 4(b) and (d) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities) Regulations, 1995.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 authorisation for entering into such huge deals. It was also observed that YSIL did not have requisite margins with its broker for such transactions. It is noted that during investigations YSIL had stated that margins were paid in the form of securities but failed to provide such details. Investigations had inferred that such dealings were at the behest of the broker since YSIL was not able to refute when confronted with the said statements. Based on the above, investigations have alleged that the noticee had indulged in the purchase and sale of the company’s securities not intending to effect transfer of beneficial ownership but intended to operate only as a device to cause fluctuations in the market price of the securities and also indulged in an activity which was calculated to create a false and misleading appearance of trading on the securities market. By the said acts YSIL was alleged to have violated the provisions of Regulation 4 (b) and (d) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities) Regulations, 1995.
Page 3 of 6 i. That the allegations relating to the transactions under investigations are stale and the show cause notice has been issued more than 5 years after the alleged transactions and that the subject matter of investigation is barred by the law of limitation. ii. That all the transactions were carried out On-line on the terminal of the exchange as per the practice and conventions of the stock market and there was nothing in the transactions which was clandestine in so far as they were concerned iii. That the investigating officer has grossly failed to disclose the cause, facts and circumstances and the source and reasons of the investigation iv. That the provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 were not applicable at the time of the alleged transactions v. That the whole proceedings were bad and illegal in law as the procedure required to be followed under Regulation 8 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 was not followed. vi. That allegations in the show cause notice were based on inference and surmises vii. That there was no allegation that the alleged transaction had caused any injury or loss to any investor
Page 4 of 6 proceedings against YSIL be dropped. SEBI vide letter dated 10-04-2007 requested Shri M. S. Sharma to forward a copy of the Order dated 25-07- 2005 of the Delhi High Court dissolving YSIL along with his identification. I note that vide letter dated 18-04-2007, Shri M. S. Sharma had forwarded an uncertified copy of the order of the High Court.
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/TCN/ID-3/90/03/2008. 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.