Order in the matter of Mishka Finance & Tradiing Ltd. in respect of Mr Jayesh N Kesharia

Appearance for the Noticee: Mr Jayesh N Kesharia 1. SEBI, vide an ad interim ex-parte order dated April 17, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “interim order”), restrained Mishka along with other 128 entities including Mr. Mr Jayesh Kesharia ('the Noticee') from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or dealing in securities in any manner whatsoever, till further directions. The Noticee was debarred on the basis of prima facie finding that he was one of the LTP contributors as described more particularly in the interim order through his 4 buy orders. 2. Pursuant to the interim order the Noticee filed his reply in the matter vide letters dated May 05, 2015 and June11, 2015 and also availed the opportunity of personal hearing on November 04, 2015. The reply/submissions of the Noticee are, inter alia, as under: a) The Noticee submitted that he has to support his family consisting of his widow mother aged 71, wife and two school going children. Although his wife conducts tuitions, however, on small scale, her income is not at all sufficient to take care of his family.

He is a bona fide investor and his only source of income is from the securities market. Whereas in view of the interim orders dated December 19, 2014 and April 17, 2015 in the matters of Radford Global Limited and Mishka he has been debarred from entering into capital market, as also his demat account has been frozen, which has placed him in a serious financial trouble. b) With respect to his trading strategy, he submitted that he has been investing mainly in "B" group and "T?' group securities. Based on his research on the basis of data available on Bombay Stock Exchange website, he selects the scrips in "B" group and "T" group. Initially he purchases such scrips, and as and when he feels that the scrip has reached the possible higher rate, he sells the same. The transactions carried out by him are purely delivery based, and spread over a period of time. c) With respect to his transactions in the scrip of Mishka he submitted that he carried out these transaction based on his own research. On all the days, there was huge demand on previous trading day with very low volumes and the buy quantity far Order in the matter of Mishka Finance and Trading Limited exceeded the volume traded.

Looking to the trading history of the said scrip, he started placing orders in the said scrip. d) Between September, 2013 and October, 2013, he had placed various orders for purchase in the scrip of Mishka .As against the said orders, orders for purchase only 17 shares were executed, However, he had received delivery of only 15 shares, the balance 2 share purchased was closed out. The details of the orders executed for purchase of 17 shares as submitted by him are as follows: Date Order No. Trade Time Quantity Rate 54.04 02/09/2013 15000024000957 10:15:25 3 55.09 03/09/2013 190000129005515 15:15:28; 2 56.19 04/09/2013 200002700424 10:15:37 6 58.30 06/09/2013 14000026000002 12:15:35 2 102.76 22/10/2013 20000111001472 11:15:29 4 e) The said 15 shares of `. 10/- paid up were split into 150 shares of ` l/- paid up on January 16, 2014. The said 150 shares were sold by the Noticee on 17th February 2014 at the rate of `.50.77 per share, i.e. for an aggregate amount of `. 7,615.50. Thus, in the transactions in the scrip of Mishka he has earned a profit of `6604.04. He has used his own funds for buying the shares of Mishka.

His trades in Mishka are not even 0.5% of his total turnover across the market during the examination period. 3. I have carefully considered the allegations against the Noticee, his reply and the material available on record. I note that in the instant case, the directions issued against the Noticee are interim in nature and have been issued on the basis of prima facie findings. SEBI had issued directions vide the interim orderin the matter in order to protect the interests of investors in the securities market. Detailed investigation in the matter is still in progress. Thus, the issue for consideration at this stage is whether the interim directions, issued against the Noticee vide the interim order need to be confirmed, vacated or modified in any manner, during pendency of investigation in the matter.

4. As noted in the interim order, during the examination period an artificial demand for the shares of Mishka was created though it did not have the fundamentals to command such a high demand nor were there any external factors such as corporate announcements which could have led to such demand. From the trading behaviour shown in this case it is noted that despite there being a huge demand for the shares of Mishka the sellers sold shares in miniscule quantities on various occasions and thereby controlled the supply of shares. Such selling behaviour also exhibits suspicious trading in spite of a huge demand for the shares. Although the role of buyers in creating such demand cannot be outrightly ignored, the facts and circumstances of each case need to be holistically examined. In this case, from the material available on record, I note that the Noticee is not connected / related to the company or its promoters or directors or with any entities mentioned in the interim order. The Noticee has demonstrated that he had placed the buy orders seeing huge demands on previous trading day as against thin volume traded and purchase quantity was always far less than the traded volume. Further, he had placed impugned orders in the scrip without foreseeing any manipulation or being a party to the scheme described in the interim order. He has also demonstrated that he had purchased only 15 shares out of his own funds through 4 trades without being party to the scheme in question. Out of his trades he had earned as meagre profit of ` 6604/. I do not find sufficient material at this stage to attribute role of the Noticee in the dubious plan, scheme or devices and to continue the directions issued in the interim order against the Noticee.

5. Considering facts and circumstances of this case, I hereby direct that the directions issued against the Noticee stand revoked. 7. A copy of this order shall be served on all recognized stock exchanges and depositories to ensure compliance with above directions.

Sd/-

DATE: November 10th, 2015 RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL PLACE: MUMBAI WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA