Regulation Violated Provision Parties

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent Regulations 3 and 4 Appellants/Noticees No. 1, 2 and 3

and Unfair Trade Practices (Sellers)
relating to Securities Market) Appellants/Noticees No. 9, 11 and 12
Regulations, 2003 (Buyers) Respondent:
Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI)

SEBI (Collective Investment Not specified Appellant: Dhanolty Developers Limited

Schemes) Regulations, 1999 Respondent: Securities
and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent Regulations 3 and 4 Appellants: Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd and
and Unfair Trade Practices 13 others Respondent:
Relating to Securities Markets) Securities and Exchange Board of India
Regulations, 2003 (SEBI)

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent Regulations 3 and 4 Appellants/Noticees: 32 entities including

and Unfair Trade Practices individuals and companies Respondent:
relating to Securities Market) Securities and Exchange Board of India
Regulations, 2003 (SEBI)
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003
SEBI (Registrars to an Issue and
Share Transfer Agents)
Regulations, 1993
Circular on submission of client
level holding statement dated
18.06.2021
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003
Regulations 3 and 4
Regulation 9A(1)(e)
Not applicable
Regulations 3 and 4 and Section
12(A) of the SEBI Act
Section 11 and 11B of the
Securities and Exchange Board of
India Act, 1992
Appellants: 8 entities including individuals
and companies Respondent: Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Appellant: Alankit Assignments Limited
(Registrar and share transfer agent)
Respondent: Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI) Respondent:
Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI)
Appellant: MPC Securities Limited (Stock
broker) Respondent: National Stock
Exchange of India Limited (NSE)
Appellant: Rajiv Maheshwari (Individual)
Respondent: Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI)
Appellants: 2 brokerage firms, 3
individuals Respondent: Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rule 8(f); Chapter XIII of Bye-Laws Appellants: 13 individuals Respondent:
Rules, 1957; NSE Bye-Laws
SEBI (Prohibition of Insider
Trading) Regulations, 1992 SEBI
(Substantial Acquisition of
Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 2011
SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of
Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 1997
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices
relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003
Regulation 13 of PIT Regulations
Regulation 29 of Takeover
Regulations
Regulation 10
Regulations 3 and 4
Regulations 3 and 4
Regulations 3 and 4
National Stock Exchange of India Limited
(NSE)
Appellants: 8 entities including individuals
and companies Respondent: Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Appellants: Ferryden International Ltd and
Ashok Bhandari (Individual) Respondent:
Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI)
Appellants: 4 entities including a company
and individuals Respondent: Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Appellants: 3 individuals
Respondent: Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI)
Appellants: Suraj Govind Prajapati and
Priyank Prajapati (Individuals)
Respondent: Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI)
SEBI (Listing Obligations and Not specified Appellant: P.V.R. Murthy (Individual)
Disclosure Requirements)
Regulations Respondent: Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI)
Date of Order Facts
19.05.2023 Noticees 1, 2 and 3 purchased shares of
Wisec Global Limited from its director
without consideration and sold the shares
in minuscule quantities, creating New High
Price (NHP). This increased the price of the
scrip.
Noticees 1, 2 and 3 and Noticees 9, 11 and
12 entered into structured trades, placing
buy and sell orders within short time
intervals. This created artificial trading
volumes.
Noticee 1 wrongly showed the off-market
transaction as a loan to avoid SCRA
violation.
Legal Principle
Off-market transactions require
spot delivery on payment of
consideration, as per
SCRA.Structured trades with
intent to create artificial
volumes and mislead investors
are violative of PFUTP
Regulations.

19.05.2023 SEBI held that the appellant was running a Entities operating CIS without
Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) SEBI registration are in violation
without registration, in violation of CIS of CIS Regulations.
Regulations. SEBI directed the appellant
to refund money to investors and comply
with other directions in orders dated
04.11.2015 and 24.04.2020. Appellant
claimed it has complied with the directions
and made refunds to investors.

19.05.2023 Noticee 1 issued preferential allotment to Authority should exercise power

other noticees after funding them. This was within reasonable time in
found to be manipulative and violative of absence of limitation period.
PFUTP regulations. Inordinate delay causes
Show cause notice was issued more than 9 prejudice.
years after the preferential allotment in
2012.

18.05.2023 Noticees 1-6 devised an arrangement to Manipulation of share price

manipulate share price of a company through structured trades is
through connected entities i.e. Noticees 7- violative of PFUTP regulations.
89. This violated PFUTP regulations. AO
and WTM held noticees guilty and imposed
monetary penalty and debarment.
18.05.2023 Penalty proceedings initiated in 2021 for
GDR issuance by Cals Refineries Ltd in
2007. Investigation completed in
2013.Show cause notice issued in matter in
2013 by WTM.12 years delay in initiating
penalty proceedings.
Authority should exercise power
within reasonable time in
absence of limitation period.
Inordinate delay causes
prejudice.

18.05.2023 SEBI inspection found delays by appellant Penalty should be proportionate

in resolving investor complaints within to violation based on facts and
prescribed 30 day timeline. Designated circumstances.
Authority recommended issuance of
regulatory censure. WTM held violation of
RTA regulations and restrained appellant
from taking new assignments for 6 months.

18.05.2023 NSE inspection found discrepancies in Any incorrect reporting in

appellant's weekly holding statements: In 1 holding statements is
case, reported quantity was higher than impermissible and
actual In 1 case, unacceptable.
reported quantity was lower than actual
Appellant claimed first
discrepancy was inadvertent error and
second was due to demerger related
issues.

18.05.2023 SEBI investigation found appellant traded Trades within regulatory limits
in company shares through miniscule without intention to manipulate
quantity orders at higher than LTP. SEBI prices are permissible.
held this was manipulative and imposed
penalty. Appellant claimed trades were
permissible limit orders within 5% above
LTP.

17.05.2023 SEBI investigation found appellants Ad-interim orders to be passed

indulged in front running trades by trading only in extreme emergency to
ahead of orders placed by a portfolio protect investors/market.
manager. SEBI passed an interim order
against appellants for unlawful gains and
other directions Appellants claimed there
was no evidence to prove front running
charges.
15.05.2023 Appellants were clients of Anugrah Stock & Receiving assured returns/fixed
Broking Pvt. Ltd., a NSE member. Anugrah profits from broker is
offered prohibited Derivatives Advisory prohibited.
Services with assured returns. NSE
declared Anugrah a defaulter and expelled
it. Appellants' claims for compensation
from Investor Protection Fund rejected as
they availed prohibited services.

15.05.2023 Appellants traded in shares of Transpek Non-disclosure of changes in

Industry Ltd. Failed to make required shareholding above specified
disclosures regarding thresholds violates regulations.
shareholding/changes in shareholding
exceeding thresholds.SEBI held this
violated PIT and Takeover regulations and
imposed penalty.

12.05.2023 Appellants acquired over 15% shares of a Regulatory discretion must be

company in 2007, triggering open offer exercised fairly and reasonably
requirements under takeover regulations. based on facts and
Appellants failed to make open offer in circumstances.
2007. SEBI in 2023 directed them to make
open offer with interest.

10.05.2023 SEBI held appellants engaged in Issue already decided by SAT in

manipulative trading in company shares earlier order.
violating PFUTP regulations. SAT had
already dismissed appeals on same issue
for same period in earlier order dated
22.03.2021.

04.05.2023 SEBI passed an interim order against Opportunity should be given to

appellants along with others imposing apply for vacation of interim
market ban and impounding unlawful orders.
gains. Appellants filed these appeals
against the interim order.

04.05.2023 Opportunity should be given

to comply with directions in
interim order.
SEBI passed an interim order against
appellants directing deposit of
unlawful gains, market ban etc.
Appellants sought to deposit their
share of unlawful gains, but their
request remained pending.
02.05.2023 Penalty imposed on appellant for violations No undue delay in complex
related to GDR issue of Birla Cotsyn (India) GDR manipulation cases
Ltd in 2010. Appellant claimed no evidence involving foreign jurisdictions
against him and delay in issuance of
notice.SAT held appellant was director
involved in GDR issuance, matter already
decided in previous orders.
Violation Order Passed By
Noticees 1, 2 and 3: Appeals filed by Noticees 1, 2, 3, Securities Appellate
Violated SCRA and PFUTP 9, 11 and 12 dismissed. AO order Tribunal (SAT)
Regulations. Received upheld.
shares without
consideration,
manipulated price through
small trades, indulged in
structured trades.
Noticee 1: Furnished false
information regarding off-
market transaction.
Noticees 9, 11 and 12:
Indulged in structured
trades, violative of PFUTP
Regulations.

Operating a CIS without Appeal Disposed. SEBI Securities Appellate

obtaining certificate of directed to hear the appellant Tribunal (SAT)
registration from SEBI, in and pass appropriate order on its
contravention of CIS application within 2 weeks.
Regulations.

Violation of PFUTP Appeal allowed. Penalty order Securities Appellate

Regulations 3 and 4. quashed due to inordinate delay Tribunal (SAT)
of over 9 years in issuance of
show cause notice.

Violation of PFUTP Penalty reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs Securities Appellate

Regulations 3 and 4 by each for appellants/noticees. Tribunal (SAT)
manipulating share price. Debarment period reduced to
period already undergone.
Directions issued regarding use
of orders in criminal
proceedings. Appeals disposed
accordingly.
Not specified.
Delay in resolving investor
complaints within timeline
prescribed under RTA
regulations.
Submitting incorrect
holding statement data,
violating NSE circular
requirements.
None. Charges set aside.
Alleged front running
trades
Appeal allowed. Penalty order Securities Appellate
quashed due to inordinate delay Tribunal (SAT)
of 12 years in issuance of show
cause notice for penalty
proceedings.
Violation upheld. Direction Securities Appellate
restraining appellant from taking Tribunal (SAT)
new assignments quashed.
Regulatory censure issued
instead to be careful regarding
timely complaint resolution.
Appeal partly allowed.
Appeal dismissed. Penalty of Rs.1 Securities Appellate
lakh upheld for incorrect Tribunal (SAT)
reporting violation.
Appeal allowed. Penalty set Securities Appellate
aside. Tribunal (SAT)
Direction restraining appellants Securities Appellate
from securities markets stayed Tribunal (SAT)
during proceedings. Appellants
to deposit 50% of alleged
unlawful gains, accounts to be
defreezed thereafter. Other
directions to continue. Appeal
disposed with modifications to
interim order.
Availing prohibited Appeals dismissed. NSE order Securities Appellate
Derivatives Advisory rejecting claims upheld. Tribunal (SAT)
Services from broker.

Failure to disclose Appeal dismissed. Penalty of Securities Appellate

acquisition/changes above Rs.13 lakhs upheld. Tribunal (SAT)
5% and 2% as required
under PIT and Takeover
regulations.

Failure to make open offer SEBI order set aside. Matter Securities Appellate
under takeover regulations remanded to SEBI to pass fresh Tribunal (SAT)
in 2007. order considering other
provisions of regulations.

Manipulative trading in Appeals dismissed based on Securities Appellate

violation of PFUTP SAT's earlier decision on same Tribunal (SAT)
Regulations 3 and 4. issue.

Violation of PFUTP Appeals disposed with direction Securities Appellate

Regulations 3 and 4. to appellants to apply for Tribunal (SAT)
vacation of interim order before
SEBI. SEBI to decide the
application after hearing in 3
weeks.

Violation of PFUTP Appeals disposed with Securities Appellate

Regulations 3 and 4. Tribunal (SAT)
direction - if appellants
deposit their share of
unlawful gains as per order,
their accounts to be
defreezed in 48 hours. Other
directions to continue.
Appellants can apply for
vacation of interim order.
Violations related to Appeal dismissed based on Securities Appellate
Tribunal (SAT)
GDR issuance. Tribunal's earlier decisions in
same matter.
Intermiediary
N/A (Individuals)

Company (Appellant)

Company and individuals (Appellants)

Companies and individuals (Appellants)

Individuals and companies (Appellants)

Registrar and share transfer agent (Appellant)

Stock broker (Appellant)

Individual (Appellant)

Brokerage firms and individuals (Appellants)

Stock exchange (Respondent)

Individuals and company (Appellants)

Individual and company (Appellants)

Company and individuals (Appellants)

Individuals (Appellants)

Individuals (Appellants)
Indiviudual (Appellants)