Shri Dipak Patel

SAT-appeal

• Alleged front-running and fraudulent, unfair and manipulative trading: Dipak Patel allegedly tipped Anandkumar and Kanaiyalal Patel about Passport's impending orders, enabling trades ahead of Passport and subsequent squaring-off for profit.
  Appeal No. 78 of 2012 was disposed of pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction for a de novo decision. · The Tribunal independently assessed Anandkumar Baldevbhai Patel's liability for the alleged fraudulent and manipulative conduct.
  Appeal: Supreme Court disposed of the appeal concerning Anandkumar Patel on 05 April 2017, directing SAT to decide the matter afresh; SAT decided Appeal No. 78 of 2012 on 15 March 2019.
• Violation of Regulation 3 PFUTP Regulations attracting penalty under Section 15HA SEBI Act; original fraud details not reiterated
  Appeal Nos. 239 and 240 of 2018 dismissed with no order as to costs · Recovery Certificate dated 18.06.2018 for Rs 9,03,40,726.03 upheld
  Appeal: SAT order 09.11.2012 setting aside penalty was challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 2595, 2596, 2666 of 2013; Supreme Court allowed appeals on 20.09.2017 restoring AO penalty; PVP precedent challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 5202-5204/2019 - notice 12.07.2019 with stay only
• Violation of Regulation 3 of PFUTP Regulations leading to Rs 5 crore penalty by Adjudicating Officer
  Appeal Nos. 239 and 240 of 2018 against Recovery Certificate dismissed with no order as to costs · Recovery Certificate dated June 18, 2018 upheld; interest payable from AO order date
• Front-running by non-intermediary: Dipak tipped forthcoming FII Passport orders to KB who traded ahead and squared off when Passport orders hit market, violating FUTP Reg 3.
  AO imposed Rs 5 crore penalty on Dipak Patel under Sec 15HA · AO imposed Rs 5 crore penalty on Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel
  Appeal: Appeals No. 216 of 2011, 74 and 78 of 2012 disposed by common SAT order dated 09.11.2012; AO order challenged
• SAT matter SATV-CFD5F6BBF53123DD4CDF2D9A
  Misc. Application No. 141 of 2018 for condonation of 670-day delay rejected · Appeal No. 189 of 2018 dismissed as barred by delay