Petitioner

Team Code: T-37
UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT SELECTIONS GRAND INTRA, 2022
Before
THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PINDIA
APPEAL NO. 202/2022 FILED U/S OF
MOON PHARMA & M R.

BENNETT............................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
SECURITY BOARD OF
PINDIA................................................................................RESPONDENT
CLUBBED WITH
APPEAL NO. 317/2022 FILED U/S OF
JANE AND DARCY……………...............................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
SECURITY BOARD OF PINDIA...............................................................................RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL for APPELLANT/APPLICANT
p a g e| II
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER TABLE OF CONTENTS
UMCS, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF
CONTENTS...............................................................................................................II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................IV
LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................VI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................VIII
ISSUES RAISED..........................................................................................................................X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS....................................................................................................XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...........................................................................................................1
A: THE INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEAL

BETWEEN MOON PHARMA & BOCKHARDT WAS NOT UPSI IN TERMS OF
THE PIT REGULATIONS……………………………………………………….
I. THE DEAL BETWEEN MOON PHARMA AND BOCKHARDT IS NOT A MATERIAL
INFORMATION
II. THERE WAS PROMPT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION

III. THERE WERE SPECULATIONS REGARDING THE DEAL IN THE MARKET.
B: THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WARRANTED PASSING OF AN EX PARTE AD

INTERIM ORDER AND SPB HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWERS WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF LAW OF LAND
I. EX-PARTE ORDERS MUST BE PASSED IN CASE OF EXTREME EMERGENCY
II. THE DISGORGEMENT DEMANDED BY SBP WAS UNLAWFUL.
III. THE EX-PARTE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
C: SPB’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS, AS
p a g e| II
UMCS, 2022
SOUGHT BY DARCY AND JANE, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN VIOLATED.
p a g e| II
II. IT VIOLATES ART. 14 & 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS
III. ACCESS TO ALL THE DOCUMENTS COLLECTED DURING INVESTIGATION IS A LEGAL

RIGHT OF THE ALLEGED PARTIES.
D: THE TRADES UNDERTAKEN BY DARCY DID NOT VIOLATE PIT

REGULATIONS.
I. THE RELIANCE OF WTM OF SBP SOLELY ON CALL LOGS TO INFER
COMMUNICATION OF UPSI WAS IN DISREGARD OF LAW.
II. THE PETITIONER’S DECISION TO TRADE IN SCRIP OF MOON PHARMA WAS HIS
INDEPENDENT DECISION FREE FROM ANY INDUCEMENT
III. THAT UPSI CAME INTO EXISTENCE ON 12TH DECEMBER, 2021, ONLY AFTER
PETITIONER HAS ALREADY PURCHASED SHARES OF MOON PHARMA.
PRAYER FOR
RELIEF..............................................................................................................XII
p a g e| III
UMCS, 2022
p a g e| III
UMCS, 2022
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
ases
2017 SCC OnLine SAT 183 (India)........................................................................................24

Bareilly Electric Supply Co. v Workmen AIR 1972 SC 330 (India)........................................24
Chinatalpati Srinivasa Raju v SEBI (2018) 7 SCC 443...........................................................29
Civil Aviation v Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 251 (India)..................25
Dilip S Pendse v SEBI 2009 SCC OnLine SAT 176................................................................29
Kashinath Dikshita v Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 229 (India).............................................24
Manoj Ganeriwala, In re (Unfair Trade Practice) 2007 SCC OnLine SEBI 9........................27
Meenglas Tea Estate v Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1719 (India).................................................24
Ms Smitaben N Shah v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2010 scc OnLine SAT 243
(India)...................................................................................................................................26
N.S Tewana v Union of India (1994) 29 DRJ 258, 283 (India)...............................................25
Natwar Singh v Director of Enforcement (2010) 13 SCC 255, 255, 269 (India)....................24
Rakesh Agrawal v Securities Exchange Board of India 2003 SCC OnLine SAT 38..............30
Reliance Petroinvestments Limited v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2015 SCC
OnLine SAT 105..................................................................................................................31
SEBI v Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1...........................................................29
SEBI v Kishore R Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368...........................................................................28
SEBI v Kishore R Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368...........................................................................29
Securities and Exchange Board of India v Price Waterhouse 2017 SCC OnLine SAT 68.....23
Shri B. Ramalinga Raju v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2017 SCC OnLine SAT
183........................................................................................................................................27
Shri D.A Gadgil v SEBI and Others 2003 SCC OnLine SAT 36 : [2003] SAT 8 (India).......26
State Bank of Patiala v S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, 389, 391 (India)..............................25
State of Mysore v Shivabasappa AIR 1963 SC 375 (India).....................................................24
State of Uttar Pradesh v Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772.............................................26
Swadeshi Cotton Mills, (1981) 1 SCC at 689, 705, 707 (India)..............................................24
Swadesi Cotton Mills v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818 (India)..........................................26
United States of America v Raj Rajaratnam 09 Cr 1184 (RJH)..............................................28
p a g e| IV
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
UMCS, 2022
Statutes
Securities and Exchange Board of India 1992, s 11, 11B and 11C........................................23
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements)
2009, s (za)(zb)....................................................................................................................23
Regulations
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015....................................................................29

Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015, r 2(1)(d).....................................................27
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015, r 4(1).........................................................27
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015....................................................................29
Constitutional Provisions
Constitution of India 1950, art 14............................................................................................24

Constitution of India 1950, art 21............................................................................................24
Journal
Rajat Sethi et al, ‘Insider Trading: Circumstantial Evidence is Evidence Enough?’(2020)

Vol.32 NLSI Rev. 206.........................................................................................................27
Website
2013)https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/somasekhar-sundaresan-
truth-about-indian-insider-trading-law-112062500010_1.html accessed September 15,
2022......................................................................................................................................29
https://www.irccl.in/post/role-of-regulators-an-analysis-in-the-light-of-reliance-industries-
limited-v-sebi accessed on 12 September 2022...................................................................26
Books
M P Jain, Administrative Law (1994)......................................................................................23

Moot Proposition
Moot Proposition Para 1..........................................................................................................30
Moot Proposition Para 10..................................................................................................22, 28
Moot Proposition Para 12........................................................................................................28
p a g e| IV
UMCS, 2022
Moot Proposition Para 17 (ii)...................................................................................................22

Moot Proposition Para 7..............................................................................................28, 29, 30
Committee Report
Report of the High Level Committee to Review the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading)
Regulations, 1992, Justice N.K. Sodhi, 10 (Dec. 7, 2013)..................................................30
p a g e| IV
UMCS, 2022
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
UMCS, 2022
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
UMCS, 2022
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
UMCS, 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] STATEMENT OF FACTS
UMCS, 2022
ISSUES RAISED
PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] ISSUES RAISED
UMCS, 2022
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
UMCS, 2022
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
A: THE INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEAL

BETWEEN MOON PHARMA & BOCKHARDT WAS NOT UPSI IN TERMS OF
THE PIT REGULATIONS
¶1. It is humbly submitted that the information and agreements pertaining to the deal between
Moon Pharma and Bockhardt was not Unpublished Price Sensitive Information in terms of
the Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations, 2015. In this argument, it is further contended
on the behalf of SEBI that (i) The deal between Moon Pharma and Bockhardt is not a
material information, (ii) There was prompt public disclosure of the information and (iii)
There were speculations regarding the deal in the market.
I. The deal between Moon Pharma and Bockhardt is not a material information
¶2. It is relevant to note the definition of “unpublished price sensitive information” as given
under Regulation 2(1)(n) of PIT Regulations: “unpublished price sensitive information”
means any information relating to a company or its securities, directly or indirectly, that is
not generally available which upon becoming generally available, is likely to materially
affect the price of the securities.1
¶3. As per the regulation 2(ha) “price sensitive information” means any information which
relates directly or indirectly. to a company and which if published is likely to materially
affect the price of securities of company.2
¶4. Hon'ble SAT in the case of Rajiv B. Gandhi v. SEBI3 stated that “Unpublished price
sensitive information has been defined in the regulations to mean any information which
relates to any of the matters referred to in sub clauses (i) to (viii) of regulation 2(k) 4 and is
not generally known or published by the company for general information but which, if
published or known, is likely to materially affect the price of the securities of the company in
the market. In other words, any information which is not known but. if known, could either
way affect the price of the scrip of the company would be unpublished price sensitive in
formation.”5
1
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015, r 2(1)(n).
2
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 1992, r 2(ha).
3
Rajiv B. Gandhi v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2008 SCC OnLine SAT 78
4
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 1992, r 2(k)(i) to (viii).
5
Rajiv B Gandhi v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2008 SCC OnLine SAT 78.
PAGE | 10
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT] PRAYER FOR RELIEF
UMCS, 2022
¶5. In the matter of Emami Limited,6 the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI has held that law may
require disclosure of a number of events, however, every such event which is disclosed may
not be price sensitive in terms of the PIT Regulations, 1992. The deal between Moon Pharma
and Bookhardt, was published but the mere fact that it was published doesn’t mean that it
would inexorably constitute UPSI regardless of the materiality of its potential price impact, as
the revenue pursuant to the deal is only 1.3% of the total revenue of Moon Pharma.7
DATE OPENING CLOSING LOW HIGH VOLUME

PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE TRADED (IN
LAKHS)
December 21, 2021 842.95 842.95 824 899.40 238
December 22, 2021 834.40 943.55 821.95 951.25 301
December 23, 2021 878.80 870.80 789.75 878.80 236
December 24, 2021 928 931 865.25 950.45 349
December 25, 2021 939.80 978.70 917 986.90 377
¶6. From the above table8, it can be inferred that post announcement of the deal between
Moon Pharma and Bookhardt, there was hardly any effect on the price of scrip of Moon
Pharma. As per the table above, daily change in the range of Rs. 110-50 per share in the
price, was usual for the scrip of Moon Pharma. On disclosure of the deal, similar change of
Rs. 100-50 per share was observed and there was no unusual change in the price of the scrip
of Moon Pharma. Hence, it is clear that even on the disclosure of the alleged Price Sensitive
Information, there was no impact on the price of the scrip. Accordingly, announcements
cannot be considered as price sensitive information.
¶7. Here, Moon Pharma is a medicine-manufacturing business, and if a manufacturing
company were to sell its products or buy raw materials, it would be a part of its normal
6
Emami Realty Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 2974.
7
Moot Proposition Para 12.
8
Moot Proposition Table 2.
PAGE | 11
UMCS, 2022
business activity which would not be price sensitive and not required to be disclosed. And the
method of funding of the project is not per se price sensitive information, as it will only affect
1.3% of the annual revenue9 and it can’t be argued that since the price of the scrip of Moon
Pharma had gone up, the decision of Moon Pharma to deal with Bockhardt was price
sensitive.10
¶8. In, JC. Mansukhani v. SEBI11, it was held that while not every contract for supply of
goods manufactured by a company would be price sensitive, however, in this case the two
contracts entered into by the company constituted sixty five percent of the total orders
received by the company in that year. Therefore, the monetary quantum of the contracts was
substantial enough that its disclosure could cause a material impact on the price of the
company's securities. Same was contented in Mr. Anil Harish v. Securities and Exchange
Board of India, that information only qualifies as UPSI when the monetary value of the
transaction crosses a certain threshold.
¶9. In the light of the arguments presented above, it is contended that the information
regarding the deal between Moon Pharma and Bockhardt was published, but it doesn’t
materially affect the price of the securities of the company in the market, so it’s not UPSI.
II. The information was generally available in the market

¶10. As per the definition of “unpublished price sensitive information” as given under
Regulation 2(1)(n) of PIT Regulations: “unpublished price sensitive information” means any
information relating to a company or its securities, directly or indirectly, that is not generally
available which upon becoming generally available, is likely to materially affect the price of
the securities12. Generally, available information means information that is available to people
on a non-discriminatory basis.
¶11. In 63 Moons Technologies Limited,13 it was observed by the tribunal that if any
information is a part of public record and part of generally available information to all and
10
11
12
13
63 Moons Technologies Limited, In re, 2018 SCC OnLine SEBI 193
PAGE | 12
UMCS, 2022
sundry, it cannot be considered unpublished price sensitive information. The same was
observed in Bharti Airtel Limited,14 that any information available in the public domain
cannot be considered as UPSI but generally available information, as per PITS Regulations
2015.
¶12. As per the facts of the case, it was already prevalent in the market that Bockhardt had
rejected Tibbott’s bid and was going ahead with Moon Pharma. 15 And therefore the
information regarding the deal between Moon Pharma and Bockhardt ceases to be a UPSI as
the same is in the knowledge of persons other than the Moon Pharma or the people of the
corporation.16 And In Tara Jewels Limited, the tribunal observed that if any information has
been publicly announced, it no longer can be covered under the ambits of UPSI and gains the
tag of generally available information.17
¶13. Therefore, it is contended that the information regarding the deal between Bockhardt and
Moon Pharma was already present in the market, and was generally available and as per the
observation of Supreme court in Hindustan Liver Ltd. v. SEBI18, any generally available
information cannot be covered under the ambit of UPSI.19
III. There was prompt public disclosure of the information
¶14. Public disclosure refers to the act of making information or data readily accessible and
available to all interested individuals and institutions. As per the Schedule A of the PIT
Regulations there should be a prompt public disclosure of unpublished price sensitive
information that would impact price discovery, no sooner than credible and concrete
information comes into being in order to make such information generally available20.
¶15. Therefore, it is submitted before the tribunal that in the present case both the companies
14
Bharti Airtel Limited, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SEBI 452,
15
16
Dewan Housing Finance Limited, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SEBI 434,
17
Tara Jewels Limited, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SEBI 120,
18
Hindustan Liver Ltd v. SEBI, (1988) 18 SCL 311
19
Rakesh Agarwal v. SEBI, [2004 (49) SCL 351]
20
PAGE | 13
UMCS, 2022
entered into the Licensing and Supply Agreement on 24th December 2021 at 0400 hours.
Under the signing of the Agreement, both Bockhardt and Moon Pharma made a public
announcement of the Agreement on the same day at 0855 hours in their respective
jurisdictions on the stock exchanges where they were listed. 21 And there was no delay in the
disclosure of the agreement.
B: THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WARRANTED PASSING OF AN EX PARTE AD

INTERIM ORDER AND SPB HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWERS WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF LAW OF LAND
¶16. It is humbly contended that the facts of the matter did not warrant passing of an ex
parte ad interim order and the Securities Board of Pindia did not exercise its powers within
the confines of the law of the land. This is submitted on the grounds that-
[II.1] Ex parte orders must be passed in case of extreme emergency
[II.2] The disgorgement demanded by SBP was unlawful.
[II.3] The ex-parte cannot be treated as a show cause notice
[II.1] EX PARTE ORDERS MUST BE PASSED IN CASE OF EXTREME

EMERGENCY.
¶. 2. It is humbly submitted that Section 11 and 11B of SEBI Act, 1992 shows that SEBI has
to protect the interest of investors in securities and regulate the securities market by such
measures as it thinks fit and such measures may be for any or all of the matters provided in
sub-section 2 of Section 11 of the Act:
a) regulating the business in stock exchanges and any other securities markets;
b) registering and regulating the working of stock brokers, sub-brokers, share

transfer agents, bankers to an issue, trustees of trust deeds, registrars to an issue,
21
Moot Proposition Para
PAGE | 14
UMCS, 2022
merchant bankers, underwriters, portfolio managers, investment advisers and such

other
intermediaries who may be associated with securities markets in any manner;
c)...
¶. 3. In Liberty Oil Mills & Ors. vs. Union of India & 18 Ors, the Supreme Court stated that
ex-parte interim orders may be made only when there is an emergency. The urgency must be
infused by a host of circumstances, viz. large scale misuse and attempts to monopolize or
corner the market. The Supreme Court further held that the regulatory agency must move
quickly in order to curb further mischief and to take action immediately in order to instill and
restore confidence in the capital market. In the present case, SAT stated that the balance of
convenience dictates that immediate action has to be taken against the entities to prevent
further harm to the investors and to the securities market.
¶. 4. In the case of Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Satyanarayan

Singh, observed: ‘Balance of convenience’ means the comparative mischief or inconvenience
to the parties. In the present case, there was no such urgency as there were no attempts to
monopolise or corner the market, and also no large-scale misuse that took place. The
allegedly unlawful profits gained by Darcy by selling the shares was 57 lakhs, which was a
very miniscule amount compared to the overall expected revenue of the Moon Pharma, i.e.,
800 crores.
¶. 5. Further, the balance of convenience was not in favour of the appellants. As remarked in
North End Foods Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI- It does not mean that in every case, an ex-
parte interim order should be passed on the pretext that it was imminent to pass such an
interim order in order to protect the interest of the investor or the securities market. An
interim order, however temporary it may be, restraining an entity/person from pursuing his
profession/trade may have substantial and serious consequences which cannot be
compensated in terms of money.
¶. 6. In the instant case, SEBI prohibited Moon Pharma from accessing capital markets and
raising funds, Mr. Bennett was prohibited from taking up a directorship in any other listed
entity and prohibited Jane and Darcy from accessing the securities market and dealing in
securities of any listed companies, all on the basis of an allegation that was not yet proven.
PAGE | 15
UMCS, 2022
For a company as large as Moon Pharma, such a restriction, however temporary, would not
only have huge monetary losses, but also other losses that cannot be compensated in terms of
money, such as reputation, faith of investors, share-holders etc. The balance of convenience
is, thus, against the appellants and cannot be a valid justification for ‘urgency’ warranting the
passing of an ex-parte ad interim order.
¶. 7. Moreover, in Udayant Malhoutra vs. SEBI, the court remarked that there is no doubt
that SEBI has the power to pass an interim order and that in extreme urgent cases SEBI can
pass an ex-parte interim order but such powers can only be exercised sparingly and only in
extreme urgent matters. The court stated that no case of extreme urgency was made that
warranted the respondent to pass an ex-parte interim order only on arriving at the prima-facie
case that the appellant was an insider as defined in the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading)
Regulations, 2015 (“PIT Regulations” for short) without considering the balance of
convenience or irreparable injury. In the present case as well, there was only a prima-facie
case made for ‘insider’ and no proper consideration of the balance of convenience or
irreparable injury that it would cause to the parties.
¶. 8. Lastly, in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. HSCC (India) Ltd, the court
observed that the respondent is empowered to pass an ex-parte interim order only in extreme
urgent cases and that such power should be exercised sparingly. Also, the restraint order is
unjustified as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice as embodied in Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. The restraint on the appellants is also in violation of natural justice
under Article 14 as it has been passed “till further orders” without establishing the guilt of the
appellants and without giving a fair opportunity to be heard.
[II.2] THE DISGORGEMENT DEMANDED BY SBP WAS UNLAWFUL.
¶. 9. Black’s Law Dictionary defines disgorgement as “the act of giving up something (such
as profits illegally obtained) on demand or by legal compulsion”. Section 11B of the SEBI
Act, 1992 states that SEBI shall have the power to incorporate and establish disgorgement as
an exclusive power:-“It is hereby declared that the power to issue directions under this
section shall include and always be deemed to have been included the power to direct any
person, who made profit or averted loss by indulging in any transaction or activity in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or regulations made thereunder, to disgorge an
amount equivalent to the wrongful gain made or loss averted by such contravention.”
PAGE | 16
UMCS, 2022
¶. 10. It is humbly submitted that in Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. v. SEBI, the SAT clarified
that since disgorgement aims to strip the unlawful profits from the wrongdoers, the
disgorgement amount should never exceed the total gains realised of the illicit act. Further, in
Shailesh S. Jhaveri A. v. SEBI, the SAT held that SEBI’s power to order disgorgement was
only limited to those wrongdoers who made unlawful gains and that the disgorged amount
cannot under no circumstances exceed those gains.
¶. 11. In the instant case, in Order 2 of SBP, SBP prima facie inferred that Jane and Darcy
had communicated the details of the Agreement and thus asked Darcy to disgorge a sum of
INR 1.57 Crores within 15 days of receipt of order, estimating it to be the profit made by
Darcy from the alleged wrongful trade in Moon pharma. However, the total profit gained by
Darcy from the shares of Moon Pharma was Rs. 57.2 Lakhs, while a profit of Rs. 1 Crore was
gained from the sale of mutual funds. These mutual funds, which included 50% of securities
of Moon Pharma, were bought by him through a systematic investment plan over a period of
5 years.
¶. 12. Therefore, the disgorged sum not only includes the allegedly unlawful gains but also
those gains that had been gained by the appellants as a result of systematic financial
investment and planning and not as a result of alleged insider trading that could only
reasonably begin months prior to the trading, making the inclusion of this sum unreasonable.
Further, in the case of United States v. Carson, it was stated that to obtain disgorgement, the
authorities must:
 prove that there is a reasonable likelihood that Defendants will commit violations in
the future; and
 distinguishing any ill-gotten gains from Defendants lawful gains.
¶. 13. In the instant case, there is no reasonable likelihood presented that the appellants
would commit violations in future, moreover, there was no difference provided between the
allegedly ill-gotten gains and those that resulted due to systematic investment, i.e. lawful
gains that could reasonably take place due to the appellant’s deep knowledge of the securities
market, the good performance of Moon Pharma on the market following the announcement,
and his wide ranging experience as a trader.
¶. 14. Thirdly, in India, quantification of disgorgement by SEBI, ordinarily proceeds in the

PAGE | 17
UMCS, 2022
following manner: In case of insider trading, where the UPSI is of a positive nature-
Disgorgement = Sale Value of Shares (in case of a sale) or value of shares, a

reasonable time after the information becomes public – Cost of Acquisition
However, at the same time, it is imperative that the amount of disgorgement be computed as
the ‘reasonably approximate unlawful gains’ made by the party ordered to disgorge. In the
instant case, even if the quantification of disgorgement sum is done with the above-
mentioned method, its computation is not ‘reasonable approximation of unlawful gains’,
since the violation is not even established yet and includes gains that are, without
apprehension, lawful in nature.
[II.3] THE EX-PARTE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
¶. 15. The orders passed by SBP were said to be considered as “show-cause notices”.
Similarly in Pratik Stock Vision Private Limited vs SEBI, it was mentioned that the ex-parte
order shall be treated as a show cause notice against the authorities.
The court, however, states that- But the so-called show cause notice of SEBI in effect is an
order, as it inflicts restraint / prohibition on Pratik (the appellant) from carrying on its
legitimate business activities. It is settled law that a prohibitory order cannot be effected
through a show cause notice. If the show cause notice itself is an order, then the very
purpose of the notice asking to show cause is defeated. If any prohibitory order is to be
issued then it should be stand-alone order. The law does not recognize show cause cum penal
order in matters like the one under reference. In light of the punitive directions, the so-
called show cause notice is a façade and mockery of justice. It is obvious that SEBI has
prejudged the issue, since the language of the order indicates that it has already been
concluded that Pratik is guilty and that show cause notice is only a formality. Therefore,
Pratik is placed in a situation where it has already been determined and the opportunity
provided to Pratik to show cause is an empty formality to make good the fatal procedural
deficiency.
¶. 16. In the present instant as well, the so-called show cause notice inflicts restraint on the
appellants from carrying out legitimate business activities- a prohibitory order cannot be
affected through a show cause notice. In this manner, if the show cause notice is itself an
order, its purpose is defeated, making it a situation wherein, even though the appellants have
PAGE | 18
UMCS, 2022
been given a 21 day period to file their replies, the opportunity to show cause is simply a
formality as it has already been used as a penal order.
C: SPB’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS, AS

SOUGHT BY DARCY AND JANE, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
¶. It is humbly stated that the SPB’s refusal to provide the information & documents, as
sought by Darcy and Jane, is against the principles of natural justice. In this argument, it is
further submitted that (firstly), the principles of natural justice have been violated; (secondly),
it violates Art. 14 & 21 of the constitution and international conventions; (thirdly), providing
all the documents collected during investigation is a legal right of the alleged parties.
I. The principles of natural justice have been violated
¶. What kind of financial relation Jane and Darcy had not been known nor have the details of
this relationship been spelt out either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order.
There is also no other material that could throw any light on this matter. Darcy wanted to
purchase the shares as he was enthusiastic about the prospects of the healthcare sector, and it
was his independent decision.22 The healthcare sector was generally performing well on
account of the Alpha Pandemic and concessions given by the government to pharma
companies.
¶. The appellant furnished three demands and had repeatedly pointed out the relevance of the
following documents to prepare their defence:
A. Call records;
B. All documents obtained from moon pharma; and
C. Internal File noting of the surveillance team of SBP with respect to the case.
¶. Firstly, the call records have been used as evidence of the alleged discussions on
Unpublished Price Sensitive Information between Darcy and Jane. To prepare a defence
against this allegation, the appellants demand that these call records be inspected by them.
¶. Secondly, the documents obtained from Moon Pharma included certain information with
22
Moot Proposition Para 17 (ii).
PAGE | 19
UMCS, 2022
respect to the Agreement with Bockhardt- 1. Detailed list of events. 2. Minutes of the internal
meetings. 3. Full list of designated persons who were involved. 23 This information was used
by SBP against the appellants, alleging that the deal between Bockhardt and Moon Pharma
should have been UPSI and that Jane and Darcy, being party to these discussions were prima
facie responsible for having discussed the details of them. The appellants, thus, require these
documents to counter such allegations by studying them. Further, since these documents
included records of internal meeting of board members, there were allegedly discussions
about information relating to the financial results that were announced on the same day as the
announcement of the deal. The appellants, thus, demand that the documents be declassified to
prepare a worthy defense against such allegations.
¶. Lastly, following the rules of natural justice, the appellants demand that the internal file
noting of the surveillance team of SBP with respect to the case be made available to them, to
appreciate the evidence against them, and for the reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense
accordingly.
¶. The scope of the rules of natural justice has been summarized by the book 24 in the
following words: The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice...in the past it was thought that it included just
two rules, namely
(1) Nemo debet esse judex propria causa (no one shall be a judge in his own cause), and
(2) Audi Alteram Partem (no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a
reasonable hearing).
¶. It is most humbly argued that the denial by SEBI to provide the information and
documents, sought by Jane & Darcy is an utter violation of natural justice. A fair appreciation
of evidence is necessary to abide by the principle of natural justice. The promoters as per
Section 2(za) & (zb)25 and the non-promoters must be given a fair opportunity to defend
themselves by providing them access to all the documents and information collected by
SEBI. Any inquiry that is to be conducted before issuing a direction in terms of Section 11,
11B and 11C of the Act26 must comply with the bare minimum principles of natural justice.
¶. The Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in its order in SEBI v. Price Waterhouse 27
directed SEBI to provide all the statements recorded during the course of the investigation to
23
24
M P Jain, Administrative Law (1994).
25
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) 2009, s (za)(zb).
26
Securities and Exchange Board of India 1992, s 11, 11B and 11C.
27
Securities and Exchange Board of India v Price Waterhouse 2017 SCC OnLine SAT 68.
PAGE | 20
UMCS, 2022
the respondents and further directed SEBI to permit the inspection of all the documents
collected during the investigation to the respondents. The rules of natural justice are required
to be observed to ensure that not only justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The
object of the rules of natural justice is to ensure that the delinquent is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in the imposition of civil liability.
¶. The Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath observed as under: “no one facing a
departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant
statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of
such copies, how can the employee concerned prepare his defence, cross-examine the
witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are
incredible. It is difficult to comprehend why the disciplinary authority assumed an
intransigent posture and refused to furnish the copies notwithstanding the specific request
made by the appellant on this behalf. Perhaps the disciplinary authority made it a prestige
issue. If only the disciplinary authority had asked itself the question: ‘What is the harm in
making available the material?”28
II. It violates Art. 14 & 21 of the constitution and international conventions
¶. It is most humbly contended that the refusal by SEBI to provide information and
documents collected during the investigation is an utter violation of natural justice. A fair
appreciation of evidences is necessary to abide by the principle of natural justice. 29 Darcy and
Jane must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves by providing them access 30 to all
the documents and information31 collected by SEBI. Any inquiry that is to be conducted
before issuing a direction in terms of Section 11 and 11B of the Act must comply with the
bare minimum principles of natural justice.
¶. The Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Shri B. Ramalinga Raju v.
SEBI, held “There can be no dispute that while determining the rights and obligations of the
parties the quasi-judicial authority must adhere to the principles of natural justice which inter
alia, includes the obligation to furnish requisite documents on the basis of which charges are
framed and permit cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon ....”
Hence, non-grant of the documents asked by the appellants in the instant case is a violation of
28
Kashinath Dikshita v Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 229 (India)
29
State of Mysore v Shivabasappa AIR 1963 SC 375 (India).
30
Meenglas Tea Estate v Workmen AIR 1963 SC 1719 (India).
31
Bareilly Electric Supply Co. v Workmen AIR 1972 SC 330 (India).
PAGE | 21
UMCS, 2022
the principles of natural justice as the documents may contain certain information or evidence
which can favour the appellants and denial of the same is fatal in the light of natural justice. 32
¶. In India, any procedure which prevents a party from receiving a fair trial would violate
Article 1433 and Article 2134 of the Constitution of India. While, certain exceptions are made
to the general rule of evidential disclosure; when the disclosure might inflict serious harm on
the persons directly concerned, or where it would result in a breach of confidence, might be
injurious to the public interest, reveal official secrets, or inhibit frankness of comment or
result in detection of crime.35 Despite the exceptional circumstances, the court must make
every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, and when
necessary, with situational modifications. 36 Where disclosure is not possible, the affected
party must be allowed to review the relevant material, inspect it, and take notes if possible. 37
Full disclosure of any material held by the prosecution which weakens its case or strengthens
that of the defendants must also always be disclosed to the defendants. Furthermore, “the
principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute unless
there is a clear mandate to the contrary.” 38 Therefore, unless the statute expressly rules out
natural justice, any exercise of power which results in civil consequences to citizens must
abide by the principles of natural justice.
¶. In Global Vectra Helicorp vs. Directorate General of Civil Aviation, it was held that even
in quasi-judicial proceedings, there is a duty cast on the adjudicating authority to disclose and
supply copies of all the documents that may be available with it, enabling a noticee to
effectively defend and rebut allegations contained in a show-cause notice. 39 It is an
established position of law that even if the details of the case against the noticee are not spelt
out in the show cause notice, the noticee is entitled to be made aware of the material on the
basis of which the proposed action is to be taken or is taken.
¶. As to the concept of facilities, the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General
Comment no. 13 stated that “facilities must include access to documents and other evidence
which the accused requires to prepare his case, as well as the opportunity to engage and
communicate with counsel”.
32
2017 SCC OnLine SAT 183 (India).
33
Constitution of India 1950, art 14.
34
Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
35
Natwar Singh v Director of Enforcement (2010) 13 SCC 255, 255, 269 (India).
36
Swadeshi Cotton Mills, (1981) 1 SCC at 689, 705, 707 (India).
37
State Bank of Patiala v S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, 389, 391 (India).
38
N.S Tewana v Union of India (1994) 29 DRJ 258, 283 (India).
39
Civil Aviation v Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 251 (India).
PAGE | 22
UMCS, 2022
III. Access to all the documents collected during investigation is a legal right of
the alleged parties.
¶. It is most humbly contended that the alleged parties must be provided with all the
documents collected during the investigation. The parties alleged can be charged only when
all the documents against him are handed over to him, in order to provide a reasonable
opportunity to defend themselves. A purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity is to enable
the respondent to defend himself against the charges on which inquiry is held. The non-
supply of the documents amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity ultimately violating the
right to defend themselves. The hesitation by SEBI to disclose such documents raises
eyebrows about the fairness and transparency of the trial. Such practices taint the trials with
prejudice and partiality.
¶. Transparency and fairness must be the cornerstone of any action taken by SEBI. As much
as it is the role of SEBI to prevent any wrongdoings in the security market, it is also SEBI’s
imperative to do so within the principles of natural justice also and while ensuring the welfare
of the securities market, which has a massive impact on the economy of the country itself. 40
“If the documents asked for are relevant and may help the delinquent to prepare his/her
defence they have to be furnished and it is not correct to say that only the documents relied
upon in the show cause notice alone are to be supplied to meet the ends of justice.” 41 By not
providing these documents the SBP has not only acted against the rule of natural justice but
also of the Apex Court.
¶. The Hon’ble court in Swadesi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, held that “irrespective of
whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-
judicial, a duty to act fairly, that is in consonance with the fundamental principles of
substantive justice is generally implied." 42 The above case was also referred to by SEBI in
Shri D.A Gadgil v. SEBI and Others43, which is an encouraging sign for all the players in the
market as it shows the attitude of SEBI favouring fairness.
¶. A purpose of giving a reasonable opportunity is to enable the respondent to defend himself
against the charges on which inquiry is held. The non-supply of the documents amounts to
denial of reasonable opportunity ultimately violating the right to defend themselves. The said
40
https://www.irccl.in/post/role-of-regulators-an-analysis-in-the-light-of-reliance-industries-limited-v-sebi
accessed on 12 September 2022.
41
Ms Smitaben N Shah v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2010 scc OnLine SAT 243 (India).
42
Swadesi Cotton Mills v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 818 (India).
43
Shri D.A Gadgil v SEBI and Others 2003 SCC OnLine SAT 36 : [2003] SAT 8 (India).
PAGE | 23
UMCS, 2022
observations have been quoted with approval in a later decision of the Supreme Court. The
Apex Court has further dealt with the question of prejudice being caused to the appellant, “Be
that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was
entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the
inquiry. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant
has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself.” The above observations of
Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case under
consideration. Non-disclosure of documents causes prejudice to the case of the appellants and
is a clear denial of reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the
charges being enquired into.44
¶. It has been observed that “There can be no dispute that while determining the rights and
obligations of the parties the quasi-judicial authority must adhere to the principles of natural
justice which inter alia, includes the obligation to furnish requisite documents on the basis of
which charges are framed and permit cross-examination of the persons whose statements are
relied upon and further provide reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.”45
D: THE TRADES UNDERTAKEN BY DARCY DID NOT VIOLATE PIT

REGULATIONS.
It is humbly submitted before the SAT that Darcy was not in possession of UPSI and his
decision to trade in scrip of Moonpharma was independent of any inducement caused by
UPSI.
In furtherance of its action, the petitioner puts forth the following pleas in law: Firstly,
reliance by WTM of SBP solely on call logs to infer communication of UPSI was in
disregard of law. Secondly, the petitioner’s decision to trade in scrip of moon pharma was
his independent decision free from any inducement.
I. The reliance of WTM of SBP solely on call logs to infer communication of

UPSI was in disregard of law.
To establish violation of PIT regulation it must be proved that Darcy was in possession of
44
State of Uttar Pradesh v Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772.
45
Shri B. Ramalinga Raju v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2017 SCC OnLine SAT 183.
PAGE | 24
UMCS, 2022
UPSI while trading in scrip of Moonpharma46. The law constructs presumptions47

regarding access to price sensitive information based on a person’s structural or
functional relationship with the listed company and its management. The constraints
faced in proving facts that would only be within the knowledge of the delinquent parties
would mean that a prudent man’s estimate of the probabilities of a case can be inferred
from several determinative circumstances.48 Circumstantial evidence has long been
considered as admissible evidence to prove violation of securities laws 49. For civil cases
the inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished
from conjectures or speculation, there must be evidence direct or circumstances to
deduce necessary inference in proof of the facts in issue50.
In present scenario, after SBP got an alert in its internal surveillance system 51, Darcy
and Jane were summoned by SBP because Jane, employed in Moonpharma was junior
to Darcy, and they have been interacting occasionally. 52 Upon receiving information
that Jane was aware of nitty gritty 53 of the deal between Moonpharma and Bockhardt,
an order was passed by WTM of SBP by placing reliance merely on call logs.
The point of law on inference and consideration of circumstantial evidence has been
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera54, it was
held that the test for circumstantial inference is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ as
opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt, it would always be that inferential process
that a reasonable or prudent man would adopt to arrive at a conclusion. It is the judicial
duty to take note of the immediate and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the
events on which the allegations are founded, and to reach what would appear to the Court
to be a reasonable conclusion therefrom. 55 In SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel56, the
46
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015, r 4(1).
47
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015, r 2(1)(d).
48
Manoj Ganeriwala, In re (Unfair Trade Practice) 2007 SCC OnLine SEBI 9.
49
Rajat Sethi et al, ‘Insider Trading: Circumstantial Evidence is Evidence Enough?’(2020) Vol.32 NLSI Rev.
206.
50
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC 716.
51
52
53
Moot Proposition Para 12
54
SEBI v Kishore R Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368.
55
ibid.
56
SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1.
PAGE | 25
UMCS, 2022
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that circumstantial evidence could be successfully
applied as it only led to one conclusion. In this regard, the decision in United States of
America v. Raj Rajaratnam57 is relevant wherein the importance of circumstantial
evidence relating to an insider has been culled out as, “...Moreover, several other Courts
of Appeals have sustained insider trading convictions based on circumstantial evidence in
considering such factors as “(1) access to information; (2) relationship between the tipper
and the tippee; (3) timing of contact between the tipper and the tippee; (4) timing of the
trades; (5) pattern of the trades; and (6) attempts to conceal either the -14- trades or the
relationship between the tipper and the tippee.”
The counsel on side of petitioner contends that WTM erred in drawing reasonable
inference from call logs, the order was in ignorance of totality of circumstances, the
WTM failed to appreciate facts surrounding the call logs. Both Jane and Darcy were
sports enthusiast and they used to discuss about PPL that was going on around the same
time period for which calls are considered58. Though, Jane aware of nitty gritty59 of the
deal was connected person under Regulation 2(1)(d)(i)60, the fact of several calls between
Jane and Darcy61 cannot by itself be a foundational fact to draw inference 62. At best it can
only make Petitioner a connected person under Regulation 2(1)(d) 63 but it is a rebuttable
presumption. There were several calls between Jane and Darcy during the month of
October, selective reliance on call of 28th October64 is contrived inference at prejudice of
Darcy, also it ignores that playoffs of PPL were scheduled in last week of October, and
the exceptional upward trend in pharma sector during that time period. There is no
material fact to infer communication of UPSI from Jane to Darcy, the circumstantial
evidence cannot be applied because it leads to more than one conclusion 65. There is no
corroborative evidence to support the assertion of WTM which is essential for conviction
as held in Dilip S. Pendse v. SEBI66, rather the assertion of WTM is weakened by the fact
of upward trend in Pharma sector and interest of Darcy in Pharma sector represented by
57
United States of America v Raj Rajaratnam 09 Cr 1184 (RJH).
58
59
60
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015.
61
62
Chinatalpati Srinivasa Raju v SEBI (2018) 7 SCC 443.
63
Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015.
64
65
SEBI v Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1.
66
Dilip S Pendse v SEBI 2009 SCC OnLine SAT 176.
PAGE | 26
UMCS, 2022
PIPLA and Tibbott being part of his portfolio.
II. The petitioner’s decision to trade in scrip of Moon Pharma was his
independent decision free from any inducement.
The SEBI Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are intended to protect the interests
of investors in the Securities Market which has seen substantial growth in tune with the
parallel developments in the economy. Investors' confidence in the Securities Market is a
reflection of the effectiveness of the regulatory mechanism in force. 67 The power that
vests with SEBI if not exercised reasonably fighting against it can be an uphill task68.
The order against petitioner is based on strained and adapted inference of circumstances.
Petitioner is experienced finance person 69 and active trader with portfolio of over 23
stocks valuing around Rs. 10 crores70. His decision to invest in Pharma is based on
exceptional upward trend in stock prices of listed Pharma companies without any
inducement of UPSI. The choice of investment in stock market is informed by
fundamentals of a company, which makes Moonpharma the second largest pharma
company of Pindia with strong hold in international market, the best choice for
investment.71 SPB failed to appreciate this aspect of Petitioner’s informed decision. The
position of petitioner making independent choice is further strengthened by purchase of
shares of PIPLA on October 5, 2021 and his investment in FBI Pharma Scheme of the
FBI Pharma Focus Mutual Fund72 made over period of 5 years.
III. That UPSI came into existence on 12 th December, 2021, only after petitioner
has already purchased shares of Moon Pharma
The order passed by SPB rests on presumption that UPSI existed at the time of purchase
of shares by Darcy, but on applying the standard adopted by SAT to determine UPSI
leads to conclusion that UPSI came into existence on 12th December 2021.
Bockhardt was negotiating with multiple companies simultaneously since September

67
SEBI v Kishore R Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368.
68
Sundaresan S, “Somasekhar Sundaresan: Truth about Indian Insider Trading Law” (Business Standard
January 23,2013)https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/somasekhar-sundaresan-
truth-about-indian-insider-trading-law-112062500010_1.html accessed September 15, 2022.
69
70
71
72
PAGE | 27
UMCS, 2022
202173. There was only speculation of Bockhardt going ahead with Moonpharma 74. Even
if these speculations of negotiation between Bockhardt and Moonpharma are considered
to be true, still it doesn’t make up for UPSI as held in Rakesh Agrawal v. Securities
Exchange Board of India75, that “negotiations are negotiations they sometimes fail and
sometimes come to fruition”.
Whether any information amounts to UPSI is necessarily a mixed question of fact and
law76. SPB in its order could not provide any material or specific date to demonstrate that
UPSI had come into existence during the time of communication between Darcy and
Jane, or Prior to Darcy’s decision to purchase. For similar set of reasons SAT in Reliance
Petroinvestments Limited v. SEBI77, denied to consider initial meetings as UPSI. In
Chandra Mukherji v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, SAT denied to consider
date of appointing consultants for transaction as the date of inception of UPSI, rather it
held that UPSI came into existence when intent to comply with sale and purchase
agreement was shown by official of the company.
Hence, the analysis of above line of decisions leaves no scope of UPSI coming into
existence prior to 12th December 2021.
73
74
75
Rakesh Agrawal v Securities Exchange Board of India 2003 SCC OnLine SAT 38.
76
Report of the High Level Committee to Review the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992,
Justice N.K. Sodhi, 10 (Dec. 7, 2013).
77
Reliance Petroinvestments Limited v Securities and Exchange Board of India 2015 SCC OnLine SAT 105.
PAGE | 28
UMCS, 2022
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced, and
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
A. THE INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEAL BETWEEN MOON

PHARMA & BOCKHARDT WAS NOT UPSI IN TERMS OF THE PIT REGULATIONS.
B. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WARRANTED PASSING OF AN EX PARTE AD INTERIM
ORDER AND SPB HAS EXERCISED ITS POWERS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF LAW OF
LAND.
C. SPB’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION & DOCUMENTS, AS SOUGHT BY
DARCY AND JANE, IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
D. THE TRADES UNDERTAKEN BY DARCY DIDN’T VIOLATE PIT REGULATIONS.
And/or
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and
good conscience.
s/d
On behalf of Respondent/s
PAGE | 29

Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code: T-37

UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT SELECTIONS GRAND INTRA, 2022

THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PINDIA

APPEAL NO. 202/2022 FILED U/S OF

MOON PHARMA & M R.

APPEAL NO. 317/2022 FILED U/S OF

JANE AND DARCY……………...............................................................................APPELLANT

SECURITY BOARD OF PINDIA...............................................................................RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL for APPELLANT/APPLICANT

A: THE INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEAL

II. THERE WAS PROMPT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION

B: THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WARRANTED PASSING OF AN EX PARTE AD

C: SPB’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS, AS

SOUGHT BY DARCY AND JANE, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

III. ACCESS TO ALL THE DOCUMENTS COLLECTED DURING INVESTIGATION IS A LEGAL

D: THE TRADES UNDERTAKEN BY DARCY DID NOT VIOLATE PIT

I. THE RELIANCE OF WTM OF SBP SOLELY ON CALL LOGS TO INFER

COMMUNICATION OF UPSI WAS IN DISREGARD OF LAW.

INDEPENDENT DECISION FREE FROM ANY INDUCEMENT

PETITIONER HAS ALREADY PURCHASED SHARES OF MOON PHARMA.

2017 SCC OnLine SAT 183 (India)........................................................................................24

Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations 2015....................................................................29

Constitution of India 1950, art 14............................................................................................24

Rajat Sethi et al, ‘Insider Trading: Circumstantial Evidence is Evidence Enough?’(2020)

M P Jain, Administrative Law (1994)......................................................................................23

Moot Proposition Para 17 (ii)...................................................................................................22

A: THE INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEAL

DATE OPENING CLOSING LOW HIGH VOLUME

December 21, 2021 842.95 842.95 824 899.40 238

December 22, 2021 834.40 943.55 821.95 951.25 301

December 23, 2021 878.80 870.80 789.75 878.80 236

December 24, 2021 928 931 865.25 950.45 349

December 25, 2021 939.80 978.70 917 986.90 377

II. The information was generally available in the market

III. There was prompt public disclosure of the information

B: THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WARRANTED PASSING OF AN EX PARTE AD

[II.1] Ex parte orders must be passed in case of extreme emergency

[II.2] The disgorgement demanded by SBP was unlawful.

[II.3] The ex-parte cannot be treated as a show cause notice

[II.1] EX PARTE ORDERS MUST BE PASSED IN CASE OF EXTREME

b) registering and regulating the working of stock brokers, sub-brokers, share

merchant bankers, underwriters, portfolio managers, investment advisers and such

¶. 4. In the case of Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Satyanarayan

[II.2] THE DISGORGEMENT DEMANDED BY SBP WAS UNLAWFUL.

¶. 14. Thirdly, in India, quantification of disgorgement by SEBI, ordinarily proceeds in the

Disgorgement = Sale Value of Shares (in case of a sale) or value of shares, a

[II.3] THE EX-PARTE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

C: SPB’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS, AS

I. The principles of natural justice have been violated

II. It violates Art. 14 & 21 of the constitution and international conventions

D: THE TRADES UNDERTAKEN BY DARCY DID NOT VIOLATE PIT

I. The reliance of WTM of SBP solely on call logs to infer communication of

UPSI while trading in scrip of Moonpharma46. The law constructs presumptions47

PIPLA and Tibbott being part of his portfolio.

Bockhardt was negotiating with multiple companies simultaneously since September

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

A. THE INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEAL BETWEEN MOON

B. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WARRANTED PASSING OF AN EX PARTE AD INTERIM

C. SPB’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION & DOCUMENTS, AS SOUGHT BY

DARCY AND JANE, IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

D. THE TRADES UNDERTAKEN BY DARCY DIDN’T VIOLATE PIT REGULATIONS.

You might also like