sebi:WTM/VKC/ID7/73/07

SEBI · SEBI · 2007-05-23 · V. K. CHOPRA, WHOLE TIME MEMBER

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Minor penalty of suspension of certificate of registration for 15 days imposed

Provisions invoked

• s. 19

Regulations

• Reg. 4
• Reg. 7
• Reg. 199
• Reg. 13(4)
• Reg. 4(a)

Parties

• M/s Jayantilal Khandwala and Sons Private Limited

Holding

M/s Jayantilal Khandwala and Sons Private Limited violated Regulation 7 read with Clauses A(3) and A(4) of the Code of Conduct by aiding its clients in manipulating Roofit Industries Ltd, and its certificate of registration (INB010998038) was suspended for 15 days; no charge under Regulation 4(a) of the PFUTP Regulations was established.

Full text

Home » Enforcement » Orders » Orders of Chairman/Members Enforcement Enforcement▼ 1. Shri. Gaurav Joshi, Advocate 2. Shri. Deepak Shah, Advocate

3.1 The Broker while denying all the allegations in enquiry report submitted as under: 3.1.1 That SEBI has erred in equating relationship of the common director, namely, Mr. Suresh Hemwani, with their two clients. They further stated that relationship alone cannot and shoul for justifying any violation unless it is proved with credible evidence that such relationship did result into a violation. 3.1.2 That their volumes in the shares of M/s Roofit. have to be examined in comparison to the total volume of the market as a whole, which they state is insignificant and that they cannot framing charges of wrong doings only on the basis of relationship, as referred to in the said Show Cause Notice. It is also stated that SEBI should substantiate its findings and furthe evidence to show that transactions entered into by their clients were illegal, not permissible and were with ulterior intention. We submit that no inference whatsoever can be drawn Mr. Suresh Hemwani was a common director of two of their clients. 3.1.3 That the allegation of relationship of their clients with the promoters or directors of M/s Roofit is based on presumptions and assumptions. The Broker added that their clients were reg independently and not by virtue of their alleged relationship with the promoters or directors of Roofit. They have also submitted that SEBI has failed to define in a codified m constitutes a “relative” and how the facts and circumstances justify categorizing their clients as “relatives”

Open (Rs.) High (Rs.) Low (Rs.) Close (Rs.) Trades Volume Turnover (Rs.) 06/12/1999 265.00 266.00 257.10 260.00 81 10580 2759303 07/12/1999 255.00 263.40 255.00 258.50 47 6010 1555303 08/12/1999 259.00 261.90 246.00 246.20 47 6300 1585230 09/12/1999 246.00 247.00 240.00 241.00 51 7370 1793845 10/12/1999 242.00 260.00 238.00 258.15 71 13390 3322837

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/VKC/ID7/73/07. 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.