Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mr. Mehul Pravinbhai Jiyani vs Sebi

Securities Appellate Tribunal28 March 2023Tarun Agarwala

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Offering stock tips, recommendations on shares, bullion, futures and options, and subscription packages for such tips, is investment advisory activity and not mere stock market data or research analysis, where the material on record, including the website's categorised tips and differential subscription charges, shows the activity is advisory in nature. Where the appellant offers guaranteed or assured returns alongside such tips, that feature supports the conclusion that the activity is investment advisory in nature. A party who asserts that its activity falls outside a regulatory registration requirement must point to material or evidence showing that the activity is confined to exempt services; a bare assertion without such material does not displace the findings of the regulator's order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI

Order Reserved on : 21.03.2023

Date of Decision : 28.03.2023

Appeal No. 270 of 2023

Mr. Mehul Pravinbhai Jiyani (Proprietor - Rocket Tips) 178-Rachana Society, Kapodra Char Rasta, Varachha Road, Surat, Gujarat - 395 006. .....Appellant

Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent

Mr. Abhishek Mishra, CS for the Appellant.

Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate with Ms. Shefali Shankar, Ms. Rasika Ghate, Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

December 30, 2022 passed by the Whole Time Member

('WTM' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of 2

India ('SEBI' for short) directing the appellant to refund the

amount collected from the investors within three months in

respect of its unregistered investment advisory activities and

further restrained the appellant from buying, selling or

otherwise dealing in the securities market for a period of three

years or till the expiry of three years from the date of refund

of the amount to the investors.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is,

that the investigation was started by SEBI on the basis of a

complaint. Upon examination, the matter was found that the

appellant was found to be carrying out investment advisory

activities without obtaining a certificate of registration.

Accordingly, a show cause notice dated September 29, 2022

was issued alleging that the appellant was carrying out

investment advisory activities without obtaining a certificate

of registration in violation of the provisions of Section 12(1)

of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI

(Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 ('Investment

Advisers Regulations' for short).

3. After considering the reply and the material evidence on

record the WTM found that appellant was carrying out

investment advisory services. The WTM found that the said 3

investment advisory services was being carrying out without

obtaining registration under the Investment Advisers

Regulations.

4. We have heard Shri Abhishek Mishra, CS and

Shri Ravishekhar Pandey, the learned counsel along with

Ms. Shefali Shankar, Ms. Rasika Ghate and Shri Nishit

Dhruva, the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The only submission made by the appellant was that he

was not carrying out any investment advisory services and

that he was offering services relating to stock market data and

research on listed companies for which no registration was

required. In this regard we have perused the impugned order

and we find that the WTM had dwelt in length in coming to a

conclusion that appellant was carrying on business which was

in the nature of investment advisory services. The WTM

found that the website of the appellant clearly indicated that

he was projecting stock tips under various categories and that

were offering prospective investors, various subscription

packages upon charging different amount for different

services. The WTM further found that the appellant was also

offering guaranteed returns which amounted to offering

assured returns. The WTM accordingly came to a conclusion 4

that the appellant was offering tips relating to shares, bullion,

futures and options and such tips / recommendations were in

the nature of investment advisory services and was not in the

nature of research analysis.

6. Nothing has been pointed out by the appellant nor has

any evidence been brought on record to show that appellant

was only offering services relating to stock market data and

was not carrying out investment advisory services.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the

impugned order and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. 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 Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member 28.03.2023 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO SHAMRAO BHALBAR

msb BHALBAR Date: 2023.03.28 16:45:35 +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