Order against Pinac Stock Brokers P Ltd in the matter of Tijaria Polypipes Ltd

ORDER Under sections 11(4) and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation 11(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, against M/s. Pinac Stock Brokers P Ltd (PAN No.: AADCP3224D) in the matter of IPO of Tijaria Polypipes Limited. Appearances – For M/s. Pinac Stock Brokers P Ltd: (i) Anish Kharidia. For SEBI: (i) Mr. Biju S, Joint Legal Adviser; (ii) Ms. Jeny John, Deputy General Manager; (iii) Ms. Deena Sarangadharan, Assistant General Manager; (iv) Mr. Alvine Ethan Lyngwa, Assistant Legal Adviser.

1. Tijaria Polypipes Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TPL”), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, came out with an Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) of 1,00,00,000 equity shares of a face value of 10 each, issued at a premium of 50 per equity share, wherein it had raised 60 Crore to fund its proposed expansion and diversification plans. The aforesaid fixed price IPO which opened on September 27, 2011 and closed on September 29, 2011, was reportedly over-subscribed by 1.2 times. TPL allotted 71,64,406 shares in the retail individual investors category (constituting 71.64% of the total IPO) and 2836001 shares to the Qualified Institutional Buyers (hereinafter referred to as “QIBs”) (constituting 28.36% of the total IPO). The shares of TPL were listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as “BSE”) and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NSE”).

2. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) had conducted a preliminary investigation in respect of trading in the scrip of TPL, upon observing a steep fall in the share price on the first day of listing i.e. October 14, 2011. The preliminary investigation prima facie revealed that TPL had, through layered transactions, diverted a substantial part of its IPO proceeds in order to offset losses sustained by certain entities/individuals, who had allegedly provided an exit to retail allottees/QIBs of their shares allotted in the IPO, at a premium to the issue price. The preliminary investigation prima facie also revealed that M/s. Pinac Stock Brokers P Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee”) was one of those entities that had allegedly provided an exit to retail allottees and the huge losses sustained by it in doing so, were allegedly found to be partly borne by TPL through layered fund transactions and by its broker, Monarch Projects and Finmarkets Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Monarch”).

3. In view of the prima facie observations made in the preliminary investigation, SEBI vide an ad – interim ex – parte Order dated December 28, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Interim Order”) had inter alia prohibited the Noticee from buying, selling or dealing in securities, in any manner whatsoever, till further orders for the prima facie violation of the provisions of section 12A of the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”) read with regulations 3, 4(1), 4(2)(a) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations, 2003”). The aforesaid Interim Order was subsequently confirmed on October 31, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Confirmatory Order”).

4. Pursuant to the abovementioned Interim Order, SEBI had conducted a detailed investigation regarding trading in TPL's IPO in order to examine the role of certain entities/individuals who had traded in such IPO. On the basis of findings made in the aforesaid investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated December 10, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”), was issued to the Noticee under sections 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, calling upon it to show cause as to why appropriate action including restraining it from buying, selling or dealing in securities for a specified period should not be issued, for the violations alleged in the SCN. As per the SCN, the Noticee was inter alia alleged – i. To have been partly funded by TPL through layered transactions to the extent of 75 Lakhs, towards trading in its scrip on the first day of listing at BSE and NSE.

ii. To have been partly funded by its broker, Monarch to the extent of 2.67 Crores, towards trading in the scrip of TPL on the first day of listing at NSE. iii. To have made a purchase/sale of approximately 3,00,000 shares and 15,00,000 shares of TPL on BSE and NSE, on the first day of listing. The Noticee had purchased shares allotted in TPL’s IPO from retail allottees of such shares, at a premium to the issue price i.e. at a price of 63 and then subsequently sold the same at a lower price on the aforementioned stock exchanges, as a result of which, it had incurred a loss of approximately 6.11 Crores. In view of the same, the Noticee is alleged to have provided exit to certain retail allottees in TPL's IPO. iv. Entered into structured trades on BSE and NSE with certain entities/individuals (who had allegedly also provided exit to certain allottees in TPL’s IPO), for creating artificial volumes.

5. While the Confirmatory Order was in force, the Noticee had filed an appeal (Appeal No. 5 of 2013) for interim relief, before the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “SAT”), which had disposed of the same vide its Order dated January 11, 2013, by inter alia directing: “… the Board is directed to pass a final order in the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from the date of reply, complete in all respects, from the appellants.”

6. Pursuant to the abovementioned Order of the Hon’ble SAT, the Noticee had filed its reply to the SCN vide letter dated March 6, 2013 (which was received at SEBI on March 11, 2013). Subsequent to issuance of SCN, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the Noticee on March 21, 2013. In its aforementioned reply and during the aforesaid hearing, the authorised representative of the Noticee i.e. Mr. Anish Kharidia, had inter alia made the following submissions – i. There is no mention about the relation/nexus/connection between the alleged parties. ii. Trades of the Noticee were executed on October 14, 2011 and the alleged funding is done on or after October 18, 2011. Fund is required at the time of settlement of trade on October 18, 2011 and not at the time of execution of order on October 14, 2011. Therefore, the Noticee fails to understand what prompted or on what basis, the investigation came to a conclusion that trades of the Noticee executed on October 14, 2011 are braced up with the alleged financial transactions between TPL and third parties.

iii. The funds received by Parklight Securities Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Parklight”) from Nihita Financial Services Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Nihita”) were not IPO divested funds by TPL and the same were the own funds of Nihita received in the form of repayment of loan of 2.50 Crores by Nihita to TPL and returned back to Nihita from TPL before October 13, 2011 and hence, these were not IPO divested funds. The disbursement of funds alleged to be partly funded has been found to be prior to execution of trades. iv. The trading account with Monarch was on a “Running Account” basis. The temporary outstanding debit balance caused on account of loss of 6 Crores on October 14, 2011, was settled by making payments and selling of shares belonging to TPL before the passing of the Interim Order. Therefore, it is denied that Monarch had partly funded the loss. v. There is nothing on record to show and establish that the Noticee’s trades during the period of investigation were motivated to incur loss. This has been contrary to normal and rational human behaviour. vi. The structured trades with Jivraj Zala (hereinafter referred to as “Zala”), Swift Tie Up P Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Swift”) and Salasar Stock Broking P Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Salasar”) were mere coincidence on account of matching of trade by anonymous online trading system. vii.

There appears to be no correlation between the ratio of shares purchased at premium and the corresponding amount of loss incurred thereto and the amount of loss alleged to be funded by TPL and received through layers of Parklight or partly funded by the Monarch. viii. As there was a sharp fall in price and the quantum of loss had reached much above its head, the Noticee immediately sold the shares at market price under distress condition in a rapidly falling market price of the scrip. ix. The trading pattern and manner of trading of Zala, Swift, Salasar and the Noticee was altogether different and not comparable on any count since Swift being a broker itself has traded in the scrip of TPL like jobber/Day Trader, continuously buying and selling the shares through the day i.e. between 09:15 hours to 15:30 hours and had traded for almost 32 Lakh shares; Zala as client of Grishma Securities Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Grishma”) for almost 1.48 Crore shares and Salasar being a broker itself for almost 37 Lakh shares on BSE and NSE.

7. I have considered the SCN issued to the Noticee, its reply to the same alongwith the submissions made by its authorised representative during the personal hearing before me and all other relevant material available on record. In light of the same, I shall now proceed to deal with the charges levelled against the Noticee in the SCN.

8.1 The Noticee is inter alia alleged to have been partly funded by TPL through layered transactions, to the extent of 75 Lakhs for trading in its scrip on the first day of listing at BSE and NSE. Further, the Noticee is also alleged to have been partly funded by its broker,

Monarch to the extent of 2.67 Crores for trading in TPL's scrip on NSE. In view of the aforesaid trading, the Noticee is alleged to have incurred a loss of approximately 6.11 Crores; as a result, the Noticee is alleged to have provided exit to certain retail allottees in TPL's IPO. Further, the Noticee is alleged to have entered into structured trades on BSE and NSE with certain entities/individuals viz. Zala, Swift and Salasar, who had allegedly also provided exit to certain retails allottees in TPL’s IPO, for creating artificial volumes.

8.2.2 From the SCN, it is observed that on October 13, 2011, TPL had transferred approximately

2.51 Crore from its IPO funds to Nihita, which in turn, had transferred 75 Lakhs to the Noticee by layering the funds (routing it) through Parklight on October 19, 2011. The aforesaid manner of fund transfers had been explained in the SCN. In addition, it is observed from the SCN that the Noticee was partly funded by its broker, Monarch to the extent of 2.67 Crores towards trading in TPL's scrip on NSE.

8.2.3 It is observed from the SCN that the Noticee had traded in the scrip of TPL on the first day of listing at BSE and NSE, wherein it had bought and sold approximately 3,00,000 shares and 15,00,000 shares respectively, on those exchanges. By these transactions the gross total exposure of the Noticee was 16.55 Crores. In addition, it is observed that the Noticee while trading on BSE and NSE, had purchased shares allotted in TPL’s IPO from retail allottees of such shares, at a premium to the issue price i.e. at a price of 63, which was higher than the issue price of 60. Such shares were then subsequently sold by the Noticee at a lower price on the aforementioned stock exchanges. As a result of such trading in the scrip of TPL, the Noticee had incurred a total loss of approximately 6.11 Crores.

i. The details of the buy/sell orders placed by the Noticee on BSE is given below: BUY ORDERS SL. NO. ORDER NO. ORDER QTY. ORDER PRICE ORDER TIME TRADED QTY. 1. 20000085001388 200000 63.00 09:59:42 2,00,000 2. 22000082001178 100000 63.00 09:59:51 1,00,000

SELL ORDERS SL. NO. ORDER NO. ORDER QTY. ORDER PRICE ORDER TIME TRADED QTY. 1. 12000079009437 250000 29.00 14:21:00 250000 2. 21000090010472 50000 19.50 15:03:41 50000 ii. As borne out from the SCN, an analysis of the counterparty clients to the buy trades of the Noticee at BSE revealed that it had primarily bought shares from 89 original retail allottees in TPL's IPO, who had been allotted 2,757 shares each (total buy of 2,45,373 shares from these allottees). It was also revealed that each of these 89 retail allottees had put the sell orders for 2,757 shares at a price of 63.00 during the period between 09:36:33 to 09:42:33. The said sell orders remained pending in the system until the Noticee had placed buy orders for 2 Lakh and 1 Lakh shares respectively, at 9:59:42 and 9:59:51.

iii. The details of the buy/sell orders placed by the Noticee on NSE is given below: BUY ORDERS SL. NO. ORDER NO. ORDER QTY. ORDER PRICE ORDER TIME TRADED QTY. 1. 2011101475485207 100000 63.00 9:55:39 100000 2. 2011101475485769 100000 63.00 9:55:43 100000 3. 2011101475486334 100000 63.00 9:55:48 100000 4. 2011101475487129 100000 63.00 9:55:54 100000 5. 2011101475487728 100000 63.00 9:55:59 100000 6. 2011101475488269 100000 63.00 9:56:03 100000 7. 2011101475489432 100000 63.00 9:56:10 100000 8. 2011101475490418 100000 63.00 9:56:17 100000 9. 2011101475491297 100000 63.00 9:56:23 100000 10. 2011101475492410 100000 63.00 9:56:31 100000 11. 2011101475495275 100000 63.00 9:56:54 100000 12. 2011101475495953 100000 63.00 9:57:00 100000 13. 2011101475496664 100000 63.00 9:57:06 100000 14. 2011101475497438 100000 63.00 9:57:13 100000 15. 2011101475497924 100000 63.00 9:57:18 100000

SELL ORDERS SL. NO. ORDER NO. ORDER QTY. ORDER PRICE ORDER TIME TRADED QTY. 1. 2011101476938459 500000 30.00 14:20:19 500000 2. 2011101476951284 200000 30.00 14:22:50 200000 3. 2011101476996691 500000 30.50 14:33:16 500000 4. 2011101477033729 300000 25.75 14:39:00 300000 iv. From the SCN, it was observed that the Noticee had not entered any buy order till 9:55:38. During the period between 9:55:39 to 9:57:18, the Noticee had entered 15 buy orders of 1

Lakh shares each at 63 per share and the aforesaid buy orders were completely executed by 9:57:18. An analysis of the counterparty clients to the Noticee’s buy trades revealed that it had primarily bought shares from 485 original retail allottees in TPL's IPO, who had been allotted 2,757 shares each (total buy of 13,37,145 shares from these allottees). It was also revealed that each of these 485 retail allottees had put the sell orders for 2,757 shares at a price ranging from 62.95 - 63.00 during the period between 09:15:00 to 09:34:58. The said sell orders remained pending in the system until the Noticee had placed 15 buy orders for 1 Lakh shares each, at 9:55:39 to 9:57:18.

8.2.4 From the SCN, it is observed that the Noticee’s gross total income as per its Income Tax Returns for the three assessment years i.e. 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 and 2011 – 12 (provided with its Know Your Client (KYC) documentation), did not reflect/support its risk-taking capacity for the voluminous trading made by it in the scrip of TPL. The gross total income of the Noticee as per its Income Tax Returns is given below: ASSESSMENT YEAR GROSS TOTAL INCOME

2009-2010 0/-

2010-2011 0/

2011-2012 0/

8.2.5 I note that the Noticee itself had admitted that it had purchased shares of TPL at a higher price and sold them at a lower price. Further, I note that the Noticee had an exposure of 18

Lakh shares for 16.55 Crores, in the securities market. As borne out from the SCN, I note that such trades entered into by the Noticee in the scrip of TPL had resulted in a heavy monetary loss for it and as observed from the Noticee’s Income Tax Returns for the three assessment years i.e. 2009 – 10, 2010 – 11 and 2011 – 12, I find that it did not have adequate risk-taking capacity for such voluminous trades. Further, I find that its exposure in the securities market far exceeded such risk-taking capacity.

8.2.6 I note from the aforementioned paragraphs that funds for the losses suffered by the Noticee through trading in the scrip of TPL were inter alia diverted by TPL, through layered transactions (involving Nihita and Parklight), from its IPO proceeds. In its reply, the Noticee had submitted that the funds received by Parklight from Nihita were not IPO divested funds of TPL and the same were the own funds of Nihita received in the form of repayment of loan i.e. Inter-Corporate Deposit (hereinafter referred to as “ICDs”) taken as a measure of interim use of IPO funds prior to IPO subscription and till the date of allotment. I find it difficult to accept this submission as I observe that in the Prospectus filed by TPL before the Registrar of Companies, there is no mention of use of IPO proceeds for repayment of ICDs and no mention of ICDs being taken. It may also be relevant to note that the Noticee's directors/promoters viz. Ms. Sujal J. Jhaveri and Mr. Rupak K. Shah, were also the directors in Parklight. I, therefore, find that such submission was made to cover up for the fact that IPO proceeds were given through layered transactions to the Noticee to cover the losses incurred by it during trading in TPL's IPO. In this regard, I also find that the Noticee was funded by Monarch to the extent of 2.67 Crores in respect of the aforementioned losses suffered by it.

8.2.7 I also note that during the personal hearing before me, the Noticee's authorised representative had contended that such losses were covered through inter alia the sale of securities. In this regard, the Noticee was directed to furnish its balance sheet in order to substantiate the aforesaid submission. However, I note that the Noticee has not furnished its balance sheet and has instead furnished a one page printout containing its stock summary alongwith printouts of – (a) its ledger account for March 31, 2011; (b) ledger from October 14, 2011 to January 23, 2012 with Monarch; (c) ledger from October 14, 2011 to March 28, 2012 with Parklight. In the absence of the Noticee's balance sheet and upon a consideration of the discussions in the aforesaid paragraphs, I find it difficult to accept the Noticee’s submissions that funds received by Parklight from Nihita (and which were subsequently transferred to it), were not IPO divested funds of TPL and further, that the losses it suffered during trading in TPL's IPO were covered through inter alia the sale of securities and were not partly funded by Monarch. All these facts clearly indicate that the Noticee was assisted in such trading by TPL and Monarch.

In light of the aforementioned, I, therefore, find that the Noticee had inter alia indulged in such trading for ensuring exit to certain retail allottees in TPL's IPO and as result of the same, had suffered losses which were partly borne by TPL (through layered fund transactions) and Monarch.

8.3.1 It is observed from the SCN that the Noticee had entered into structured trades with Zala (an entity/individual who had allegedly provided exit to certain allottees in TPL’s IPO) on both BSE and NSE. The details of the structured trades carried out by the Noticee with Zala are given below:

SELL ORDERS - BSE TRADING PATTERN BUY SELL TRADED BUY SELL BUY SELL DIFFERENCE BUYER ORDER ORDER QUANTITY ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER BETWEEN QUANTITY QUANTITY PRICE PRICE TIME TIME BUY AND SELL ORDER 50000 50000 29,888 19.50 19.50 15:03:47 15:03:41 0:00:06 Jivraj Zala

SELL ORDERS - NSE TRADING PATTERN BUY SELL TRADED BUY SELL BUY SELL DIFFERENCE BUYER ORDER ORDER QUANTITY ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER BETWEEN QUANTITY QUANTITY PRICE PRICE TIME TIME BUY AND SELL ORDER 500000 500000 500000 30.50 30.50 14:33:25 14:33:16 0:00:09 Jivraj Zala 500000 300000 300000 25.75 25.75 14:39:08 14:39:00 0:00:08 Jivraj Zala

8.3.2 From the SCN, it is also noted that the Noticee had entered into structured trades with Swift (another entity who had traded in the scrip of TPL, and is alleged to have entered into synchronised trade with other shortlisted entities and in turn incurred huge losses on the day of listing and received funds from TPL through layered transactions out of the IPO proceeds to cover these losses). The details of the structured trades carried out by the Noticee with Swift is given below: SELL ORDERS - BSE TRADING PATTERN BUY SELL TRADED BUY SELL BUY SELL DIFFERENCE BUYER ORDER ORDER QUANTITY ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER BETWEEN QUANTITY QUANTITY PRICE PRICE TIME TIME BUY AND SELL ORDER 200000 14:20:59 0:00:01 Swift Tie Up 250000 250000 29.00 29.00 14:21:00 Pvt. Ltd. 50000 14:21:04 0:00:03 Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. SELL ORDERS - NSE TRADING PATTERN

BUY SELL TRADED BUY SELL BUY SELL DIFFERENCE BUYER ORDER ORDER QUANTITY ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER BETWEEN QUANTITY QUANTITY PRICE PRICE TIME TIME BUY AND SELL ORDER 500000 500000 482660 30.00 30 14:20:28 14:20:19 0:00:09 Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.

8.3.3 The Noticee had also entered into structured trades with Salasar (another entity who had traded in the scrip of TPL, and is alleged to have entered into synchronised trade with other shortlisted entities and in turn incurred huge losses on the day of listing and received funds from TPL through layered transactions out of the IPO proceeds to cover these losses). As borne out from the SCN, the details of the structured trades carried out by the Noticee with Salasar is given below: SELL ORDERS - NSE TRADING PATTERN BUY SELL TRADED BUY SELL BUY SELL DIFFERENCE BUYER ORDER ORDER QUANTITY ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER BETWEEN QUANTITY QUANTITY PRICE PRICE TIME TIME BUY AND SELL ORDER 200000 200000 188981 30.00 30 14:22:35 14:22:50 0:00:15 Salasar

8.3.4 I note that there was an almost exact matching in the quantity, rate and also proximity in the time of entering buy/sell orders by the Noticee’s and the related entities/individuals i.e. Zala, Swift and Salasar. The abovementioned details clearly show that the Noticee’s orders were structured and entered with prior understanding to match with the orders entered by such related entities/individuals. I note that placing of orders in this manner cannot be termed as regular and normal, because on the one hand a person is taking the sell position and at the same time the related entity/individual is taking the buy position. I note that no genuine investor would indulge in this kind of trading in the normal course of business. Based on the aforementioned discussion, I am of the view that the Noticee was aware about the orders of the related entities/individuals.

8.3.5 The manipulative or fraudulent intent in such transactions can be inferred from various factors such as conduct of the party, pattern of transactions, etc. Such intention may be demonstrated from the attending circumstances as observed by Hon'ble SAT in Ketan Parekh vs. SEBI, Appeal no. 2/2004, decided on July 14, 2006, wherein it was inter alia held: "The nature of transactions executed, the frequency with which such transactions are undertaken, the value of the transactions,

… the conditions then prevailing in the market are some of the factors which go to show the intention of the parties. This list of factors, in the very nature of things, cannot be exhaustive. Any one factor may or may not be decisive and it is from the cumulative effect of these that an inference will have to be drawn." Further, the Hon'ble SAT in Mr. Bhavesh Pabari vs. SEBI, Appeal no. 104/2012, decided on July 3, 2012, had inter alia observed: "When a large number of entities are involved and allegation is of fraud and manipulating the securities market, case of each entity is to be viewed with reference to its role in manipulating the trades and its role in executing synchronized/circular/reversal trades."

8.3.6 Having regard to the abovementioned observations, it can be inferred from the trading patterns in the instant case that the same were done with the ulterior motive of creating artificial volume in the securities market. Therefore, it is concluded that the trades in the scrip of TPL which resulted in the structured deals were not genuine sale – purchase transaction and had the effect of creating artificial volume. Further, such artificial trades generate interest of genuine investors, who in turn trade in such scrip on seeing the increased trading activity. I, therefore, find that such conduct of the Noticee constitutes a serious irregularity in the market and also disturbs the market equilibrium.

8.4 I note that the provisions of section 12A(a)–(c) of the SEBI Act read with regulations 3(a)–(d) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, inter alia prohibit buying, selling or dealing in securities in a fraudulent manner; employment of any manipulative/deceptive device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with dealing in securities; engaging in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with dealing in securities. Further, regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(a)–(b) and 4(2)(e) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, inter alia prohibit indulgence in fraudulent and unfair trade practices in securities either through an act which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in securities; dealing in a security intended to operate only as a device to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the price of such security for wrongful gain or avoidance of loss; or any act or omission amounting to manipulation of the price of a security. In my view, any fraudulent or deceptive device, scheme, act, omission, etc. which has the potential to inter alia induce sale/purchase of securities of any company; influence investment decisions of investors in such company; or result in wrongful gain, etc. would be covered within the prohibition contained under section 12A(a)–(c) of the SEBI Act read with regulations 3(a)–(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(a)–(b) and 4(2)(e) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003.

8.5 In view of the aforesaid discussions at paras 8.1 – 8.4, I find that the Noticee has violated the provisions of Section 12A (a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(a) – (d), Regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(a) – (b) and 4(2)(e) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, by indulging in sale/purchase of shares in TPL's IPO for ensuring exit to the retail allottees therein and also engaging in structured trades with entities/individuals for creating artificial volumes in the scrip of TPL.

9. In view of the foregoing, I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by virtue of section 19 read with section 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act and regulation 11(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, hereby restrain the Noticee from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, for a period of five years.

10. I note that vide the Interim Order dated December 28, 2011 (later confirmed through the Confirmatory Order on October 31, 2012), the Noticee was restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market till further orders. In this context, I note that the Noticee has already undergone the restraint for a period of approximately one year and five months. In view of this factual situation, it is clarified that the restraint already undergone by the Noticee pursuant to the aforementioned SEBI Orders, shall be reduced while computing the period of restrain being imposed vide this order.

11. This Order shall come into force with immediate effect.

Place: Mumbai S. RAMAN Date: May 30, 2013 WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA