Mangesh Madhukar Dhotre vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No. 133 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a co-noticee's findings of fact on the same transactions have been affirmed on appeal and not challenged by the present appellant, those findings become final as against him and may be treated as established, so that his own inconsistent or unsupported denials do not displace them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
against the present appellant by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter
referred to as 'AO') of respondent Securities and Exchange Board of
India (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') directing him to pay a
penalty of Rs. 5 lac for the violation of the provisions of Regulation
3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) and Regulation 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e) of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'PFUTP Regulations'),
the present appeal is preferred.
2. Respondent SEBI conducted investigation into the scrip of
Voltaire Leasing & Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'VLFL')
for a period between August 12, 2014 to July 31, 2015. It was found
that in all 16 persons were involved in the scheme of increasing the
price of the shares of the company on the stock exchange through
fraudulent manner. It was found that the company had decreasing
profit for three years. In 2013, the profit was Rs. 24.5 lacs. In the
next year, it went down to Rs. 20.1 lacs and subsequently in 2015-16
it decreased to Rs. 4.2 lacs. Despite this, the price of the scrip moved
in the opposite direction from Rs. 2.42 to Rs. 32.1 during 3
investigation period. It was further found that the trading in the scrip
was suspended with effect from July 19, 2010. The same was
revoked on July 26, 2010. Post-revocation, for a period of three
years, the scrip traded on the stock exchange platform for just two
days only. During the investigation period, however, though the
trading occurred the average volume was only 15 shares. The price
however rose as detailed supra.
3. The record would show that three noticees had in off-market
transaction supplied shares to 13 other persons including the present
appellant. This group then traded those shares on the exchange
platform and increased the price. Upon hearing the appellant and
others, the impugned order was passed. Hence, the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Before the respondent SEBI the appellant filed a reply. He
submitted that he was not at all aware of the transaction of the
company for which he was held guilty. He did not have any record
in this regard or even recollect any such transaction in the scrip. He
completely shown ignorance regarding the trades. 4
6. This statement was made before the respondent SEBI, in face
of the fact that while the investigation period was August 2, 2014 to
July 31, 2015, the show cause notice was issued just within three
years i.e. on April 27, 2018.
7. Before the Tribunal however the appellant took a somersault.
Now he pleaded that his signatures were either obtained by
somebody or were forged. He was merely a watchman and as such
he has not carried any trade. Learned counsel for the respondent
further pointed out that three of the entities involved in the present
case, had preferred appeal against the order of the Whole Time
Member (hereinafter referred to as 'WTM') wherein they were
restrained from accessing the securities market for a period of three
years. This Tribunal vide order dated March 15, 2021 in the Appeal
No. 409 of 2020 dismissed the appeal on merit holding that the
transactions were carried out in violation of PFUTP Regulations.
The present appellant had not challenged the said order passed by the
WTM. The findings of fact have thus become final so far as the
present appellant is concerned.
8. In the circumstances, the appeal is devoid of any merit.
Hence the following order :- 5
ORDER
9. The appeal is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary on
behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on
the digitally signed copy of this order. Certified copy of this order is
also available from the Registry on payment of usual charges.
Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member 03.01.2023 PRAMILA Digitally signed by PRAMILA TANAJI MISAL PTM TANAJI MISAL Date: 2023.01.06 16:56:17 +05'30'
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free