Order in the matter of Well Pack Papers and Containers Limited

WTM/RKA/EFD/ 04 /2016 BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ORDER Under Section 11B read with section 11(4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 in respect of: Sr. No. Entity’s name PAN 1 Mr Bharat Shantilal Thakkar AAZPT9542R 2 Mr Bipin Jayant Thaker ABYPT4984H 3 Mr Kishore Chauhan AFPPC9703G 4 Mr Prem Mohanlal Parikh ALHPP3489N 5 Mr Hemant Madhusudan Seth ANOPS8607E 6 Ms Mala Hemant Seth AZXPS0694J 7 Mr Ankit Sanchaniya BLNPS3316L 8 Mr Spectrum Chemical Pvt. Ltd. AAICS2382L 9 Mr Anand Kalu Marathe AKWPM0699M 10 Mr Santosh Deshmal Oswal AAAPO2421P 11 Mr Amar Premchand Valmiki AAUPW9971A 12 Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah AGEPS0157L 13 Mr Jignesh C. Shah AIPPS9125H 14 Mr Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh AJAPP5421B 15 Mr Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi AKCPG0246Q 16 Mr Bhavesh Pabari AKGPP8679N 17 Mr Pandya Hardik M. ARJPP6330Q 18 Mr Rameshbhai V Parmar ASQPP5072M 19 Mr Bipinkumar Gandhi AJHPG6989J 20 Mr Bhupesh Rathod AACPR3785K 21 Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah HUF AGEPS0157L In the matter of dealings in the shares of Well Pack Papers and Containers Limited 1. Well Pack Papers and Containers Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘WPPCL/company’), is a company listed at Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (“BSE”). Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI') carried out an investigation into the trading in five scrips including WPPCL pursuant to the detection of a huge rise in the traded volumes and/or price of the shares of these companies during the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. 2. Upon analysis of the trading activity in the above scrips, it was prima facie observed that certain entities had indulged in creating artificial volume by trading among themselves in a synchronized manner and carrying out off-market transfers among themselves for the purpose of meeting settlement obligations of another and thus contributing to the price rise in these scrips.

Order in the matter of Well Pack Papers and Containers Limited

3. In view of the above, in order to protect the interests of investors and to preserve the safety and integrity of the securities market, SEBI passed an interim order dated February 02, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “interim order”) restraining 39 persons/entities from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or dealing in securities in any manner whatsoever, till further directions. The interim order was later confirmed by SEBI vide order dated July 08, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “confirmatory order”) but did not deal with the abovementioned entities. 4. SEBI initiated an investigation relating to buying, selling or dealing in the shares of WPPCL to inter alia ascertain the violation of the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) and Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The investigation was carried out for two different periods of time i.e. November 28, 2008 to March 12, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘first investigation period') and March 15, 2010 to June 30, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘second investigation period'). The investigation, inter alia, revealed that: i. Certain connected/related entities had traded significantly in the scrip of WPPCL during 2008, 2009 and 2010. The relationship/connection between the entities were determined based on at least one of the following parameters: a) Similarities in the particulars/details in the KYC documents such as common telephone number, addresses, e-mail addresses, etc.; b) Trading activity in terms of buy/sell among the group and the frequency and off-market transfers between them; c) Fund transfers between the members of the said group. ii. On the basis of the said criteria two groups were identified as the 'Pabari-Parikh' group and 'Walmiki-Shah' group (“WSG”). On analysis of the trade log it was observed that Pabari-Parikh group was active in all the five scrips, whereas the WSG was active in scrip of Well Pack Papers and Containers Ltd. The members of WSG and the bases of relationship/connection amongst them are as follows: Table 1: Relationship/Connection amongst WSG Sl. Client Name KYC Relation Fund Share movement No. Movement through off market 1. Santosh - - With entities at sl. Deshmal Oswal nos. 39, 17, 2, 5, 11, 19, 21, 38, 43, 44.

2. Entities at sl. nos. 4, 7, 8, 10, With entities at With entities at sl. 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 36, 38, sl. nos. 41, 39, nos. 39, 2, 1, 17, 26, Samir 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 37 are its 18, 37, 29, 36, 33, 44, 45. Sureshbhai Shah clients. 19, 45, 17, 38, (HUF) 42, 5, 43, 25, Entities at sl. nos. 1, 5, 19, 21, 24, 32, 39 & 29 are Paras Chaplot's friend and the entity no. 2 came in touch with Paras Chaplot as a share broker. 3. Spectrum Share a common address as - - Chemicals Pvt. that of Khodiyar Industry Ltd. (Ramniklal Patel), who has the same address as that of entity at sl. no. 24, who has share and fund movement with entity at sl. no. 28. 4. Pradeepkumar - - With entities at sl. Jashbhai Patel nos. 17, 5, 20, 33, 36. 5. Amar - With entities at With entities at sl. Premchand sl. nos.19, 29, nos.28, 1, 4, 9, 15, 17, Walmiki 32, 39, 28, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 21, 30, 38. 37, 40, 41, 44.

6. Entity at sl. no. 28 is his With entity at sl. With entity at sl. nos. nephew. nos. 28, 31, 50. 19, 28. Same address as that of entity at sl. no.28. Entity at sl. no. 28 is his Bharat Shantilal nominee. Thakkar Joint a/c with entity at sl. no. 28. Business relations with entities at sl. nos 8, 12, 13, 31, 35, 50, 51 7. Same address as entity at sl. - With entities at sl. no. 10 who was introduced nos. 17, 26, 38. Ragini Bipinbhai by entity at sl. no. 17. Thakkar Introduced by entity at sl. no. 39 - as per KYC submitted by VSE Stock Services Ltd. 8. Bipin Jayant Same Tel. no. with entity at With entity at sl. With entities at sl. Thaker sl. no. 28. nos. 28.. nos. 12, 28, 31, 35.

Business relations with entities at sl. nos. 6, 12, 13, 28, 31, 35, 50, 51. 9. Navneetlal Introduced by entity at sl. - With entities at sl. Jeevanlal Gandhi no. 39 – as per KYC nos.5, 17, 33, 37, 44. submitted by VSE Stock Services Ltd. 10. Introduced by entity at sl. Janaki Bipin no. 17 – as per KYC Thakkar submitted by Active Finstock. 11. Rajesh - - With entities at sl. Ravinarayan Hati nos.39, 5, 1, 21, 36, 38, 45, 46, 50, 51, 12. Same Tel. nos. with entity at With entities at With entities at sl. sl.no.28. sl. nos. 28, 35. nos. 8. Entity at sl. no. 28 is his uncle. Chirag Rajnikant Business relations with Jariwala entities at sl. nos. 6, 8, 13, 28, 35, 50, 51. 13. Joint a/c with entity at sl. With entities at With entities at sl. no. 28. sl. nos. 28, 31, nos. 28, 31, 35, 51. Entities at sl. nos. 28 & 35 35. Kishore are witness for demat a/c of Chauhan this entity. Business relations with entities at sl. no. 6, 8, 12, 28, 31, 35, 50. 14. Manish Suresh Introduced by Narendra - - Joshi Ganatra – as per KYC submitted by Ford Brothers Capital Services Ltd. 15. Tushar - - With entities at sl.

Rameshbhai nos.5, 17, 21, 40. Patel 16. Shashikant Entity at sl. no. 46 is witness - With entities at sl. Keshavlal Shah as per KYC furnished by nos.17, 18, 39, Gogia Capital Services Ltd. 17. Samir Entity at sl. no. 9 is his - With entities at sl. Sureshbhai Shah father. nos.5, 17, 39, 26, 43, Entities at sl. nos. 4, 7, 8, 10, 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 18, 20, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 36, 38, 21, 23, 25, 27, 33, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 37 are his 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, clients. 43, 44, 45, 47, Sl. nos. 1, 5, 19, 21, 24, 32, 39 & 29 are Paras Chaplot's friend and this entity came in touch with Paras Chaplot as a share broker. 18. Rakesh - With entities at With entities at sl. Gokulbhai Patel sl. nos. 33, 39, nos.17, 5, 16, 20, 22, 17. 26, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47. 19. Entity at sl. no. 32 is his With entities at With entities at sl. Manoj Bhandari office staff. sl. nos. 39, 5, 17, nos. 28, 5, 50, 13, 1, 6, 20, 45, 20. Samirkumar - With entity at sl. With entities at sl. Kanubhai Patel no.17. nos.2, 4, 17, 18, 19. 21. Santosh Vishram - With entities at With entities at sl. Ghadshi sl. no. 39, 5, 15, no.5, 17, 1, 48, 11, 15. 17. 22. Entity at sl.

No. 39 is the - With entity at sl. introducer of Entity at sl. no.18. Jignesh C. Shah no. 22. Entity at sl. no. 39 entered into off market transactions with entity at sl. no. 28 and 35. 23. Introduced by entity at sl. - With entity at sl. no. Shalin no. 17 – as per KYC 17. Kiritkumar submitted by VSE Stock Parikh Services Ltd. Entity at sl. no. 17 entered into off market transactions with sl. no. 5 & 28. 24. Bipinkumar - - With entity at sl. no. Gandhi 28. 25. Same address with entity at With entities at With entities at sl. Mayank sl. no. 26. sl. nos. 17, 18, nos. 5, 17, 26. Navnitbhai Entity at sl. no. 17 is his 39. Gandhi relative. Entities at sl. no. 25 & 26 have joint bank a/c. 26. Entity at sl. no. 17 is his With entity at sl. With entities at sl. Aditi M Gandhi relative. no. 29. nos.5, 17, 2, 7, 42, 5, Entities at sl. nos. 25 & 26 18, 25, 26. have joint bank a/c. 27. Entity at sl. no. 47 is his With entities at sl. wife. nos. 17, 43, 44, 47. Avinash Bothra Entity at sl. no. 32 has offered him ₹10,000/- per month for lending his trading a/c.

28. Entity at sl. no. 6 is his uncle - With entities at sl. & entity at sl. no. 51 is his nos. 31, 35, 6, 8, 50, brother in law. 51, 24, 5, 19, 39. Entity at sl. no. 31 is cousin Bhavesh Pabari of entity at sl. no.28. Entities at sl. nos. 28 & 35 both directors of Rajnandi Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Share common Tel. no. with entities at sl. nos. 50, 51, 8. Business relations with entities at sl. nos. 8, 12, 13, 31, 35, 49, 50. 29. Anand Kalu Entity at sl. no. 5 is witness With entities at t - Marathe in nomination form. sl. nos. 31, 39, 5. 30. Rekha Bhandari Entity at sl. no. 30 is wife of With entities at With sl. no. 5. entity at sl. no. 32. sl. nos. 5, 39. 31. Entity at sl. no. 31 is cousin With entities at With entities at sl. of sl. no.28. sl. nos. 28, 35, nos. 28, 35, 13, 6, 8, Common email with entities 13. 35, 50, 51. Prem Mohanlal at sl. nos. 50, 31 & 51. Parikh Entity at sl. no. 35 is nominee of entity at sl. no.31. Business relations with entities at sl. nos. 6, 8, 12, 13, 28, 35, 50, 51. 32. Entity at sl. no. 32 is the With entities at - Sunil Bhandari husband of entity at sl. no. sl. nos 5, 21. 30. 33. Entity at sl. no. 9 entered With entities at With entities at sl. into off market transaction sl. nos. 17, 36, nos. 2, 4, 9, 17. Nareshbhai with entity at sl. no. 37, who 18. Devabhai Patel entered into off-market transaction with entities at sl. no. 5 & 17. 34. Kaushik - With entities at With entities at sl. nos Rajnikant Mehta sl. nos. 46, 21. 28, 17, 40, 46. 35. Entities at sl. no. 28 & 35 are With entities at With entities at sl. both directors of Rajnandi sl. nos. 28, 31, nos. 28, 31, 13, 49, 50, Yarns Pvt. Ltd. 13. 51, 8, 39. which share email with Hemant entity at sl. no. 51. Madhusudan Business relations with Sheth entities at sl. nos. 6, 31, 50, 51, 8, 12, 13, & sl. no. 49 is his wife.

36. Introduced by entity at sl. With entities at With entities at sl. no. 17 –as per KYC sl. nos.17, 39, nos.17, 4, 11, 38, 39, submitted by VSE Stock 18. 43, 44, 45. Ashokkumar Services Ltd. Bhikhalal Parmar Entity at sl.no. 36 knows sl. no. 17 who is a stock broker. Entities at sl. nos. 42, 43, 44, 41 are his relatives and he has lent his demat a/c for ₹ 6,000/- to entity at s. no. 17 for third party use on the instruction of Mr. Paras Chaplot. 37. Manisha Entity at sl. no. 5 has off- - With entities at sl. Navneetlal market transaction with nos. 5, 17, 9. Gandhi entity at sl. no. 28 and fund movement with entity at sl. no. 39. 38. Same address as that of With entities at With entities at sl. Pandya entity at sl. no. 39. sl. nos. 39, 17, nos. 42, 1, 7, 11, 17, Yaminiben M Entity at Sl. no. 39 is his 51, 21, 18. 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44. relative and he is known to entity at sl. no. 17. 39. Having common tel. no. as With entities at With entities at sl. that of entity at sl. no. 17. sl. nos. 19, 30, 5, nos. 28, 35, 17, 36, 38, Pandya Hardik From KYC submitted by 17, 29, 18, 38, 44, 1, 11, 16, 18, 21, M VSE Stock Services Limited, 21, 2, 30, 25. it is observed that entity at sl. No. 17 is the promoter of M/s. Samir Shah & Co. and entity at sl.no.39 is one of its employees. Entity at sl. no. 38 is his relative and he is known to entity at sl. no. 17. 40. Bharatkumar Has common tel. no. with - With entities at sl. Baldevbhai entity at sl. no. 44. nos.15, 5, 17, 18. Parmar 41. Dhirubhai Introduced by entity at sl. With entity at sl. With entities at sl. Antolbhai no. 39. no.17. nos.5, 17, 38, 43, 44, Parmar 42. Laxman Having common tel. no. as With entities at With entities at sl. Dhirubhai that of entity at sl. no. 17- sl. nos.39, 17. nos.17, 38, 18, 26, 41. Parmar KYC document submitted by Shah Investor’s Home Limited.

Entities at sl. nos. 36, 43, 44, 41 are his relatives & entity at sl. no. 17 is a stock broker and his advisor and well wisher. It may also be noted that he lent his demat a/c for a sum of ₹ 6,000/- per month for third party use upon the instruction of entity at sl. no. 17 for the third party use by Mr. Paras Chaplot. 43. Entity at sl. no. 43 has the With entities at With entities at sl. Shobhnaben R same address as that of sl. nos.17, 18. nos.5, 17, 1, 27, 36, Parmar entity at sl. no. 44. 38, 41, 44, 47. Entities at Sl. nos. 36, 42, 44, 41 are his relatives & he knows entity at sl. no. 17. 44. Having common tel. no. With entities at With entities at sl. Rameshbhai V with entity at sl. no. 17. sl. nos. 18, 17 no.5, 38, 39, 1, 2, 9, Parmar Entities at Sl. nos. 42, 43, 41 17, 27, 36, 41, 43, are his relatives & he knows sl. no. 17. 45. Amisha Samir - With entity at sl. With entities at sl. Patel no. 17. nos. 17, 2, 11, 19, 36, 18. 46. Vipul Hiralal Entity at Sl. No. 34 has off- With entity at sl. With entities at sl. Shah market transaction with No. 34. nos.28, 11, 17, 48. entity at sl. No. 28. 47. Entity at sl. no. 27 is his With entities at With entities at sl. husband. sl. Nos. 33, 39, Nos. 17, 43, 18, 27, Dipika Dinesh Entity at sl. no. 32 offered 17. Kankaria him ₹ 10,000/- per month for lending its trading account. 48. Shreedhar - - With entity at sl. Nos. Yellaiah Kodam 21. 49. Mala Hemant Entity at sl. no. 49 is the wife With entities at With entity at sl. nos. Sheth of entity at sl. no. 35. sl. nos. 28, 31. 35. 50. Same Tel. no. with entity at With entities at With entities at sl. sl. no. 31 and also shares sl. nos. 28, 31. nos. 28, 31, 35, 12, 51, Ankit Tel. no. with entity at sl. no. 11. Sanchaniya 28 who is the nominee for his a/c. Business relations with entities at sl. nos.6, 8, 12, 13, 28, 31, 35, 51.

51. Entity at sl. no. 28 is the With entity at sl. With entities at sl. brother in law & shares no. 35. nos. 28, 35, 12, 13, 31, common Tel. no. & entity at 50, 11. sl.no. 28 is the nominee of Vivek Kishanpal this entity for trading a/c & Samant bank a/c. Shares email with entity at sl. no. 35. Shares email with entity at sl. no. 31. iii. During the first investigation period, on BSE these 51 WSG entities purchased and sold of 2,64,36,837 shares and 1,82,98,802 shares, respectively. Out of these 51 WSG entities, 50 WSG entities traded in 98,66,868 shares constituting 19.70% % of the total market volume in the scrip and accounted for 37.32 % of the total purchase of the group and 53.92% of the total sale of the group. iv. Investigations also brought out that several of the trades were synchronised amongst the members of the group, including the Noticees, in the scrip of WPPCL during the First Investigation Period on BSE. It was noted that out of the total trading of 98,66,868 shares within the group entities, for 45,99,077 shares (accounting for 9.18% of the market volume) the buy and sell orders were placed within one minute of each other.

It was also noted that 45,99,077 shares constituted 17.39% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 25.13% of the total sale of the WSG entities. Out of these 45,99,077 shares, it was observed that the buy and sell orders with respect to 7,21,545 shares accounting for 1.44% of the total market volume, were placed in such a manner that the difference between placement of order by buyer and seller was within one minute of each other and the price at which the orders were placed as well as the quantity of both the buy and sell orders were same. The said 7,21,545 shares constituted 2.73% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 3.94% of the total sale of the WSG entities. v. Certain entities among the WSG entities i.e. Amar Premchand Walmiki, Rajeshkumar Ravinaryan Hati, Tushar Rameshbhai Patel, Manoj B Bhandari, Santosh Vishram Ghadshi, Manishaben Navneetlal Gandhi, Yaminiben Maheshbhai Pandya, Hardik Maheshbhai Pandya, Laxmanbhai Dhirubhai Parmar, Shobhnaben Rameshbhai Parmar and Rameshbhai Vitthalbhai Parmar also indulged in self-trades on BSE (i.e. buy client as well as the sell client for a given trade was the same resulting in no change of beneficial ownership). vi.

The price volume data showed that the shares of WPPCL were traded for 312 trading days during the First Investigation Period on BSE. Out of 312 trading days, the WSG entities, including the Noticees, traded among themselves on 296 days. It was observed that the volume of trades undertaken by the WSG entities, including the Noticees, contributed significantly to the daily market volume in the scrip contributing to 89.17% on December 19, 2008 and ranging from 5.63% on December 01, 2008 to 89.17% on December 19, 2008. Out of the 223 trading days the WSG entities traded among themselves, on 130 trading days they contributed more than 50% of the total market volume. vii. Out of the sad 312 trading days, on 255 trading days the WSG entities, including the Noticees, executed synchronised trades, i.e. trades in which both buy and sell orders were placed within a time difference of less than or equal to one minute. It was observed that the synchronised trades executed by the WSG entities, including the Noticees, contributed significantly to the daily market volume, ranging from 41.68% on December 02, 2008 to 52.47% on December 03, 2009. viii.

Out of 94,439 trades in the scrip of WPPCL on BSE during the First Investigation Period, 24192 trades took place at a price less than the Last Traded Price (LTP) and 46028 trades took place at a price equal to LTP and 24218 trades at a price greater than LTP. It was also observed that out of 94439 trades, the 51 WSG entities dealing through multiple stock brokers entered into 50869 buy transactions. Further, out of 50869 trades 11174 trades took place at a price less than LTP (contributing a gross fall in price by ₹ 6233.74), 24654 trades took place at a price equal to LTP and 15040 trades at a price greater than LTP (contributing a gross increasing in price by ₹ 11300.09). ix. In respect of certain trades among those executed amongst the WSG entities, first the sell order was placed at a rate above the LTP, then the buy orders were placed above these sell orders rates (which would mean that buy orders were placed at a rate higher than that of available sell orders), in order to achieve an increase in the price of the scrip above LTP.

x. During the First Investigation Period, the price of the scrip opened at ₹ 9.54 on BSE and touched a high of ₹ 510.00 i.e. there was increase of ₹ 500.46 and the shares of WPPCL were traded for 312 trading days during the First Investigation Period on BSE. It was observed that Santosh Deshmal Oswal, Pradeepkumar Jashbhai Patel, Amar Premchand Walmiki, Ragini Bipinbhai Thakkar, Navneetlal Jeevanlal Gandhi, Rajesh Ravinarayan Hati, Tushar Rameshbhai Patel, Samir Shah, Manoj Bhandari, Samirkumar Kanubhai Patel, Jignesh C. Shah, Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh, Bipinkumar Gandhi, Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi, Aditi M Gandhi, Anand Kalu Marathe, Rekha Bhandari, Sunil Bhandari, Ashokkumar Bhikhalal Parmar, Manisha Navneetlal Gandhi, Pandya

Yaminiben M, Pandya Hardik M, Dhirubhai Antolbhai Parmar, Laxman Dhirubhai Parmar, Shobhnaben R Parmar, Rameshbhai V Parmar, Amisha Samir Patel and Ankit Sanchaniya majorly contributed to this increase in the price. xi. During the Second Investigation Period on BSE, 40 WSG entities including the Noticees trading through multiple stock brokers purchased 11,66,30,714 shares on BSE accounting for 45.81% of the total volume traded in the scrip on BSE during the Second Investigation Period and sold 11,60,46,856 shares on BSE accounting for 45.58 % of the total volume traded in the scrip on BSE. xii. Ankit Sanchaniya, Santosh Deshmal Oswal, Amar Premchand Valmiki, Samir Sureshbhai Shah, Samir Sureshbhai Shah HUF, Jignesh C. Shah, Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh, Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi, Pandya Hardik M, Rameshbhai V Parmar and Bhupesh Rathod were amongst the 40 WSG entities who dealt in the scrip of WPPCL during the Second Investigation Period. xiii. On BSE these 40 WSG entities purchased and sold 11,66,30,714 shares and 11,60,46,856 shares, respectively during the Second Investigation Period. Out of these 40 WSG entities, 38 WSG entities traded in 5,59,14,388 shares constituting 21.96% of the total market volume in the scrip and accounted for 47.94% of the total purchase of the group and 48.18% of the total sale of the group. xiv.

Several of the trades were synchronised amongst the members of the group, including the Noticees, in the scrip of WPPCL during the Second Investigation Period on BSE and further out of the total trading of 5,59,14,388 shares within the group entities, for 1,72,17,572 shares (accounting for 6.76% of the market volume) the buy and sell orders were placed within one minute of each other. It was noted that these 1,72,17,572 shares constituted 14.76% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 14.84% of the total sale of the WSG entities. Out of these 1,72,17,572 shares, the buy and sell orders with respect to 14,27,634 shares accounting for 0.56% of the total market volume, were placed in such a manner that the difference between placement of order by buyer and seller was within one minute of each other and the price at which the orders were placed as well as the quantity of both the buy and sell orders were same. These 14,27,634 shares constituted 1.22% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 1.23% of the total sale of the WSG entities. xv. 15 entities among the WSG entities including the Noticees also indulged in self-trades on BSE (i.e. buy client as well as the sell client for a given trade was the same resulting in no change of beneficial ownership).

xvi. The price volume data revealed that the shares of WPPCL were traded for 75 trading days during the Second Investigation Period on BSE. Out of 75 trading days, the WSG entities, including the Noticees, traded among themselves on all 75 days. It was observed that the volume of trades undertaken by the WSG entities, including the Noticees, contributed significantly to the daily market volume in the scrip contributing to 44.97% on April 01, 2010 and ranging from 0.26% on March 16, 2010 to 44.97% on April 01, 2010. xvii. Out of 75 trading days in which the WSG entities traded amongst themselves, on 73 trading days the WSG entities executed synchronised trades, i.e. trades in which both buy and sell orders were placed within a time difference of one minute. It was observed that the synchronised trades executed by the WSG entities, including the Noticees, contributed significantly to the daily market volume, ranging from 0.03% on March 16, 2010 to 25.35% on April 20, 2010. xviii. Out of 1,01,091 trades in the scrip of WPPCL on BSE during the Second Investigation Period, 16,651 trades took place at a price less than the LTP, 66,146 trades took place at a price equal to LTP and 18,294 trades at a price greater than LTP. Further, it was observed that out of 94,439 trades, the 40 WSG entities dealing through multiple stock brokers entered into 32,306 buy transactions. Further, it was observed that out of 32,306 trades 2,574 trades took place at a price less than LTP (contributing a gross fall in price by ₹ 325.70), 22,828 trades took place at a price equal to LTP and 6,904 trades at a price greater than LTP (contributing a gross increase in price by ₹ 777.35).

xix. During the Second Investigation Period, the price of the scrip opened at ₹ 34.00 on BSE and touched a high of ₹ 74.50 i.e. there was an increase of ₹ 40.50. It was observed that on 18 trading days and 291 occasions a new high price was discovered. Further, it was observed that out of 291 occasions, on 195 occasions (on 17 days of 18 days), Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Parmar, Kaushik Rajnikant Mehta, Anand Finstockservices Ltd, Ashokkumar Bhikhalal Parmar, Santosh Deshmal Oswal, Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi, Hardik Maheshbhai Pandya, Shobhnaben Rameshbhai Parmar, Laxmanbhai Dhirubhai Parmar, Vaishali Ashvinbhai Parmar, Vipul Hiralal Shah and Aditi Mayank Gandhi contributed to increase of ₹ 29.30 (out of ₹ 40.50). xx. The WSG entities had indulged in off-market transfer of 2,91,86,301 shares of WPPCL amongst themselves during the period January 01, 2009 and January 31, 2011.

5. The afore-discussed actions on part, of the Noticees i.e. execution of synchronized and self-trades, creation of artificial volume and price manipulation which distorted the market equilibrium were also found to be fraudulent in nature. Consequently, Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated October 30, 2014 were issued to Mr Bharat Shantilal Thakkar, Mr Bipin Jayant Thaker, Mr Kishore Chauhan, Mr Prem Mohanlal Parikh, Mr Hemant Madhusudan Seth, Ms Mala Hemant Seth, Mr Ankit Sanchaniya, Mr Spectrum Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Mr Anand Kalu Marathe, Mr Santosh Deshmal Oswal, Mr Amar Premchand Valmiki, Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah, Mr Jignesh C. Shah, Mr Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh, Mr Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi, Mr Bhavesh Pabari, Mr Hardik Pandya, Mr Rameshbhai V Parmar, Mr Bipinkumar Gandhi, Mr Bhupesh Rathod and Samir Sureshbhai Shah HUF (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Noticees” and individually by their respective names), calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable directions under section 11B read with section 11(4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”) should not be issued against them for the alleged violation of the provisions of regulations 3 (a), (b), (c),(d), 4(1), 4(2) (a), (b), (e) and (g) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (“PFUTP Regulations”).

6. Vide separate letters dated November 17, 2014 and November 15, 2014 Mr. Bhavesh Pabari, Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar, Mr Bipin Jayant Thakkar, Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Seth and Ms. Mala Hemant Seth sought copies of certain documents which were provided to them vide letters dated December 16, 2014. While some of the aforementioned Noticees replied to the respective SCNs issued to them, the others did not submit any reply, the details whereof are mentioned in the following table: Table 2: Dates of replies field by the Noticees Sl. No. Name of the Noticee Date of Reply 1. Mr Bharat Shantilal Thakkar April 13, 2015 July 29, 2015 2. Mr Bipin Jayant Thaker April 12, 2015 3. Mr Kishore Chauhan No reply 4. Mr Prem Mohanlal Parikh April 13, 2015 5. Mr Hemant Madhusudan Seth April 14, 2015 6. Ms Mala Hemant Seth April 10, 2015 7. Mr Ankit Sanchaniya April 13, 2015 8. Mr Spectrum Chemical Pvt. Ltd. No reply 9. Mr Anand Kalu Marathe No reply 10. Mr Santosh Deshmal Oswal No reply 11. Mr Amar Premchand Valmiki April 20, 2015 12. Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015

13. Mr Jignesh C. Shah December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015 14. Mr Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015 15. Mr Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015 16. Mr Bhavesh Pabari April 06, 2015 July 29, 2015 17. Mr Pandya Hardik M. December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015 18. Mr Rameshbhai V Parmar December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015 19. Mr Bipinkumar Gandhi No reply 20. Mr Bhupesh Rathod April 12, 2015 21 Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah HUF December 24, 2014 August 03, 2015 7. An opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the Noticees on July 29, 2015. During the hearing, Mr. Bhavesh Pabari appeared in person and authorised representatives appeared on behalf of Mr Jignesh Shah, Mr Samir Shah, Samir Shah HUF, Mr Hardik Pandya, Rameshbhai Parmar, Mr Mayank Gandhi and Mr Shalin Parikh. As regards, Mr. Kishore Chauhan, it has been brought to my notice that during the adjudication proceedings in the same matter, one Ms. Rupal K. Chauhan, claiming to be wife of Mr. Kishore Chauhan, has informed SEBI that Mr. Kishore Chauhan had passed away on May 29, 2013 and had enclosed a certified copy of the death certificate as issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Gujarat in support thereof. None of the remaining Noticees appeared for hearing. The Noticees vide their replies/written submissions have, inter alia, submitted the following: A. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar 1) The Confirmatory Order passed against the Noticee directed SEBI to complete the investigation by December 31, 2011 which was further extended to July 31, 2012. From the details available in the public domain, it appears that the investigation in the case has still not been completed. The Noticee is still debarred from trading in the securities market and his demat account is till frozen. 2) Six Show Cause Notices have been issued to him for trading in five different scrips. These six Show Cause Notices have been issued in and around the same time and the investigation period of the five scrips is also of around the same time. It is really perplexing for him to understand the reason for the same. It appears that the six different proceedings have been initiated against him as a well calculated move to harass him.

3) A penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was imposed on the Noticee by the Adjudicating Officer in the same matter. 4) The Noticee is aggrieved by the Interim Order and the Confirmatory order passed against him making him unable to have any financial means and capacity to take service of legal consultation and represent his case in the present proceedings. 5) SEBI has relied upon an investigation report and the allegations against the Noticee have been levelled on the basis of the same. However, the complete investigation report has not been provided to him and only purported relevant extracts thereof have been provided in the SCN. SEBI should have provided the entire investigation report and ought not to have suppressed the other parts of investigation, which may be relevant for him to file his comprehensive defence. 6) The serious allegation of market manipulation has been made against him on the basis of allegedly being a part of the WSG. He has been alleged to be a part of the WSG on the basis of transfer of funds with few individuals, off market transactions with his relatives, etc. However, no documentary evidence has been provided to him so that he can rebut the same.

7) Noticee is not a part of any alleged group and has taken own decision to trade in the scrip and that as per SCN the trading of the Noticee is a miniscule percentage of the total traded volume at BSE and NSE. 8) He denied having received/transferred shares in off-market land requested SEBI to give adequate documentary evidence to rebut the same. Nonetheless, off-market transactions cannot be said to have resulted in a rise in price and trading volume. As per Annexure EE, Noticee has entered into only one off market transaction of 4000 shares with Manoj Bhandari. As such, the transaction has not disturbed the market equilibrium or has resulted into any artificial market volume. 9) He is not a part of WSG. Even otherwise his buy and sale transactions are 0.10% and 0.11% of the entire WSG. Further, his buy and sell order placed in less than one minute are 0.1% and his alleged synchronized trading is 0.7% of the WSG. Six transactions of sale totalling 37053 shares which is 0.07% of the total market volume are alleged to be synchronized by the Noticee and these transactions happened on 5 trading days out of 312 trading days.

With such miniscule volume, it cannot be alleged that he indulged in fraudulent or unfair trade practice or that he created a false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market or he entered into a transaction without the intention of performing it. 10) He had told his broker to place order in the anonymous trading platform of stock exchange and by no stretch of imagination, he could be aware of the counterparty. He did not enter into any self-trades.

11) He is a trader and used to carry out jobbing transactions. He traded in several scrips other than WPPCL both before and after the investigation period. 12) He has already been debarred by SEBI from accessing the securities market and has already faced the punishment for his trading, for no fault of his. The initiation of adjudication proceedings by SEBI while the debarment is in force, is a “double jeopardy” as it is in addition to the earlier action. The current proceedings have added to the misery and pain that he is going through since the interim order was passed against him in February 2011. 13) The period referred in several paragraphs in the SCN is different from the investigation period. 14) Had SEBI warned the Noticee, the Noticee would have stopped trading in the scrip of WPPCL in 2008 itself but SEBI waited for nearly three years to pass an ex parte order without granting an opportunity of hearing. 15) While it is admitted that the Noticee knows a few entities, decision to trade in WPPCL was an independent decision. 16) SCN has not provided any documentary evidence regarding alleged connection with the WSG, any movement of funds for purchase/sale in the scrip of WPPCL between the Noticee and Bhavesh Pabari or other entities.

SEBI has also not provided any documentary evidence regarding alleged connection with the PPG. 17) Alleged volume of off market transactions is not comparable with market volume as the period of investigation is from end of November 2008 to March 12, 2010 and the off market transactions are for a period of more than 2 years and no rationale has been provided in the SCN regarding this. The period of investigation is mentioned differently in the SCN, bringing out the inconsistencies in the SCN. 18) SCN has failed to bring on record the rationale for giving the trading pattern of 50 entities out of total 51 entities and leaving one entity. 19) Annexure C of the SCN is incomplete and the order log and trade log have not been provided. 20) SCN alleges that Noticee has contributed to the price rise, however, the table provided in paragraph 13 reveals that the Noticee’s trades have resulted in decline in price by ₹ 2.55. 21) As per Annexure C of the SCN, Noticee has bought only 59369 shares and sold 55369 shares which is 0.12% and 0.11% respectively of total market volume of shares during the investigation period.

22) No rationale has been mentioned for selecting the period of investigation and no other scrips in which SEBI observed huge rise in traded volume and / or prices, have been detailed in the SCN.

23) No complaint of any investor has been against the Noticees nor has any explanation been sought by BSE and NSE regarding his trading in the scrip of WPPCL. 24) While the Noticee carried out the impugned trading in the scrip of WPPCL, no objection was raised by the stock broker of the stock exchange. B. Bipin Jayant Thakkar Mr. Bipin Jayant Thakkar made submissions similar to Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar. He further submitted the following: 1) A penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was imposed on the Noticee by the Adjudicating Officer. 2) The action taken report has not been provided to him by SEBI. 3) The reply of the Noticee dated 20.11.2014 may be taken on record as placed before the AO. 4) Noticee is in the jobbing and arbitrage business for the as three years. 5) The SCN has failed to bring on record how the Noticee’s trading in question is different from his earlier trading. 6) The off market transaction of the Noticee is only with Chirag Jariwala on a single occasion having debit and credit reversed on the day itself. However, the SCN alleges off market transactions with certain other entities which is factually incorrect. 7) The Noticees trades had the slightest impact on the rice i.e. ₹ 7.60 against ₹11,300 in gross increase in price and ₹5.65 against ₹ 6,233.74 in gross fall in price. 8) No evidence to establish alleged relationship under KYC has been furnished along with SCN even that of common telephone number as alleged in the SCN. C. Prem Mohanlal Parikh Mr. Prem Mohanlal Parikh made submissions similar to Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar. He further submitted the following: 1) A penalty of ₹5,00,000/- was imposed on the Noticee by the Adjudicating Officer. 2) The reply of the Noticee dated 21.11.2014 may be taken on record as placed before the AO. 3) The action taken report has not been provided. 4) The SCN has failed to bring on record how the Noticees trading is different from his earlier trading. 5) Out of the synchronized trading among the WSG entities, Noticee has three days of buy totaling 12000 shares which is only 0.02% of the total traded volume. 6) The Noticees trades had the slightest impact on the price i.e. ₹ 10.55 against ₹ 11,300 in gross increase in price and ₹ 4.45 against ₹6,233.74 in gross fall in price.

D. Hemant Madhusudan Seth Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Seth made submissions similar to Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar. He further submitted the following: 1) A penalty of ₹6,00,000/- was imposed on the Noticee by the Adjudicating Officer. 2) Action proposed report has not been provided. 3) Noticee is a day trader and doing arbitrage business and hence his volume in every scrip is always large. Trades are carried out at every price level that is after price rise as well as after price fall. Further, no proof or evidence has been brought on record o make allegations against the Noticee by giving title of PPG. 4) The off market transaction of the Noticee is only with Hardik Pandya on a single occasion having debit and credit reversed on the day itself. However, the SCN alleges off market transactions with certain other entities which is factually incorrect. 5) Out of the synchronized trading among the PPG entities, Noticee has 7 days of sale totaling 30573 shares which is only 0.06% of the total traded volume. E. Mala Hemant Seth Ms. Mala Hemant Sethb made submissions similar to Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar. She further submitted the following: 1) A penalty of ₹ 6,00,000/- was imposed on the Noticee by the Adjudicating Officer. 2) Noticee is alleged to be a part of the WSG on the basis that she is wife of Hemant Mahusudan Sheth and has carried out some off market transactions with some persons who are allegedly connected to Bhavesh Pabari. 3) Noticee denied having any business/ professional connection with her husband Hemant Madhusudan Shet and confirms that she is living an independent life and taking her own independent decisions. 4) It has been alleged in the SCN that there have been off market transfers between the Noticee and her husband and this establishes her connection with the group. Noticee submits that there is not a single transaction of off market between the Noticee and her husband or any other person in the scrip of WPPCL. F. Ankit Sanchaniya Mr. Ankit Sanchaniya made submissions similar to Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar. He further submitted the following: A penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was imposed on the Noticee by the Adjudicating Officer.

1) The reply of the Noticee dated 21.11.2014 may be taken on record as placed before the AO. 2) The off market transaction of the Noticee is only with Rajesh Hati on a single occasion having debit and credit reversed on the day itself. However, the SCN alleges off market transactions with certain other entities which is factually incorrect. 3) The Noticees trades had the slightest impact on the rice i.e. ₹ 16.95 against ₹ 11,300 in gross increase in price and ₹ 6.00 against ₹ 6,233.74 in gross fall in price. 4) No evidence to establish alleged relationship under KYC has been furnished along with SCN even that of common telephone number as alleged in the SCN. G. Amar Premchand Walmiki 1) The complete investigation report was not provided to the Noticee. Further, Trade log, Order log and the Annexure to the SCN have not been provided. In the absence of the complete trade log, order log, annexure to the SCN and the annexures mentioned in the investigation report relied upon by SEBI while issuing the SCN, the Noticee is not in a position to make proper submissions in the matter. 2) SCN is general in nature and does not specify individual role in the matter.

3) No documentary evidence has been provided to prove relationship with the WSG. Noticee is not a part of any alleged group and has taken own decision to trade in the scrip 4) Off market transactions and synchronized trades are permitted by law. Synchronized trades are not illegal per se. They are actionable only when they are illegitimate and an outcome of a mischievous meeting of minds between certain entities. 5) Synchronized trades of the Noticee were executed in the normal course of the trading day and don’t represent even 0.1% of the marker volume. It is only a mere coincidence that certain trades were synchronized and but there was no intention of the Noticee to execute the same. 6) Trades which are alleged to be synchronized trades are genuine and the transfer of beneficial ownership took place. 7) Self-trades were executed in the scrip in the normal course of business without the intention of increasing artificial volume. Most of the self-trades are shifting of the position from one broker to another to meet pay in or pay out obligations. It is an admitted fact that each and every self-trade is not executed with the intention to increase artificial volume in the market but sometimes it occurs due to miscommunication with the dealer.

8) Noticee has placed orders at the then prevailing market price and hence his trading in the scrip did not result in any new high price or new low price. 9) The Noticee had executed certain off-market trades which are permissible under law as a valid mode of trade. H. Bhavesh Pabari 1) Noticee had requested for all the materials and documents relied upon by SEBI and the same have not been furnished to him till date. Provisions of the SEBI’s adjudication rules provide that the documentation and information referred to in the SCN or otherwise relied upon by SEBI for initiation of penal proceedings needs to be enclosed along with the SCN. SEBI has failed to comply with such provisions. 2) Trading of the Noticee is a miniscule percentage of the total traded volume in the scrip during the investigation period. 3) The Noticee has off market transactions with Hardik Pandya, Manoj Bhandari and Amar Walmiki. The depository participants of Amar Walmiki had wrongly transferred shares in the Noticee’s demat account which at Amar Walmiki’s request were returned back. However, the SCN alleges off market transactions with certain other entities which is factually incorrect 4) No allegation or relationship is found or alleged in the case of Noticee such as witness in nomination, witness in demat, etc. 5) SEBI ought to have considered the role of Paras Chapot and Sunil Bhandari and the voluminous transactions carried out by the persons connected to them. 6) The period of investigation is mentioned differently in the SCN, bringing out the inconsistencies in the SCN. 7) Transactions happened on 7 trading days out of 312 trading days. Therefore the Noticee is not a part of the WSG. 8) No complaint of any investor has been filed against the Noticee nor has any explanation been sought by BSE and NSE regarding his trading in the scrip of WPPCL. 9) Noticee had no fund movements with any other Noticees. 10) The action proposed chart has not been enclosed with the SCN. 11) SEBI has not provided any documentary evidence to the SCN hence there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 12) During the second investigation period, Noticee had not traded for a single share in the stock market. There is no allegation of self-trade against the Noticee.

I. Bhupesh Rathod 1) No allegation of any nature was made against the Noticee in the Interim Order and the Confirmatory Order. 2) The Noticee had carried out share trading activity in the normal and ordinary course of business activity through a well-recognised SEBI registered stock broker. At the relevant time and even thereafter till date, no grievance or complaint of any nature has been raised by any of the aforesaid broker or the stock exchange on whose trading terminal the impugned transactions were carried out. 3) The action proposed report was not enclosed with the documents provided. 4) The Noticee had no off market transaction in the scrip with the persons mentioned in the SCN. Noticee had no linkages or relation to the market trades executed by them or by him on the trading platform of the exchange; it is incomprehensible to hold or bind the Noticee as belonging to any group or connected entities as alleged in the Show Cause Notice. The allegation which is not supported by any evidence necessarily leads to prove and establish that it is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable and merely based on surmises and conjectures and hence lacks credentials.

5) The alleged connection on the basis of which the Noticee is roped into the present proceedings was that he had introduced Mr. Hemant Sheth, Mr. Prem M Parikh, Mr. bhavesh P Pabari and Mr. Kishore B Chauvan for trading account. The introduction was sought by Noticee’s broker S.P. Jain Securities Limited for merely the sake of introduction of their identity, The Noticee had not undertaken any risk responsibility and liability for carrying out any transactions by the, with the broker. The Noticee had not taken any profit or income. It was an undisputed fact that Noticee had not carried out any transaction or was instrumental for the transaction carried out by those persons in the market. 6) Introduction of some person to his broker cannot mean that Noticee associates or carries out share trading activity with them jointly. Introduction of every client to broker is mandatory and therefore broker normally insists introduction from good existing client before registering new person as client. 7) Noticee had placed an order for the quantity which he intended to buy or sell and the volume and value of transactions were very well within his financial and risk bearing capacity.

Noticee has carried out delivery based transactions. 8) SCN has failed to bring on record the rationale for giving the trading pattern of 50 entities out of total 51 entities and leaving one entity. SEBI did not find any KYC relationship, fund movement or any share movement through off market in his case. The Noticee’s name is missing from the list of 51 persons mentioned above and therefore he cannot be said to be a part of the alleged group. 9) He bought only 3200 shares and sold 1600 shares which are negligible in comparison to the total market volume during the relevant period. 10) SEBI has not relied upon the statement of any person nor any has documentary evidence been provided to prove relationship with the WSG. Noticee is not a part of any alleged group and has taken own decision to trade in the scrip and that as per SCN the trading of the Noticee is a miniscule percentage of the total traded volume. 11) Complete trade log and order log has not been provided to him by SEBI. J. Samir Sureshbhai Shah, Samir Sureshbhai Shah (HUF), Shalin Kirtikumar Parikh, Hardik Pandya, Rameshbhai V Parmar, Mayank Gandhi and Jignesh C Shah These entities filed similar replies and also filed common written submissions pursuant to the hearing.

Their submitted inter alia the following: 1) The allegations levelled against him in the SCN are general in nature. He is not connected with any group as alleged in the SCN. 2) Fraud has been played on them by one Mr. Paras Chaplot who is absconding. One Mr. Rakesh Sanghvi was Mr. Paras Chaplot’s accomplice. 3) Noticees have repeatedly requested SEBI officials for making inquiries on the details and information given by them. 4) Paras Chaplot used their demat accounts for his own purposes. Noticees were not aware of what kind of transactions were carried out through their demat account. 5) The modus operandi by Paras Chaplot was to create alluring and tempting conversations with the innocent and gullible investors and to use the brokers’ network to obtain such accounts at a fixed remuneration per month to such account holders. He would tempt to open the account and use the same to his benefit to offload the shares at higher prices. 6) One such big broker Religare Securities Limited, Mumbai was among financial beneficiary in this mechanism and therefore was working in tandem and connivance with Mr. Paras Chaplot and each such borrowed names purchase/sell instructions with Mr. Paras Chaplot under any of the account of innocent people including the Noticees were passed on the brokers from the office of Mr. Paras Chaplot only.

7) The shares belonging to the promoters group of the Company or the benami shares held by the promoters were passed on in an off market transaction to the front entities in the Group. There is no filing of the disclosure at any level either from the Company or the people involved in the transactions at the Stock Exchanges and hence no disclosures to public at large. The fund transactions were done from his office only and all cheques were deposited into the accounts of the Noticees from his Mumbai Office irrespective of the fact that none of these persons were based in Mumbai. 8) Once the shares from promoter group comes to him, he used to do off market transactions to spread the same geographically and later would instruct his brokers to trade might be even with malicious intentions of synchronized dealings or to increase the volumes of scrip but ultimately he would offload the same in the market for his own benefit. 9) The fact can be confirmed from the statement of SEBI itself where none of the transactions in total are backed by delivery of shares and settlement f accounts. 10) The trades were executed by him only and none of the instructions for entering into transactions were passed to the Noticees.

11) The Noticees were not part of any group. To form a group, the group forming persons need to know each other and keep connectivity with each other through established channels of communication. Noticees did not have and do not have any such relationship with any of the alleged Group. From the SCN it is revealed that there are only few parties which have done significant, more than 75% of the transactions. Noticees are not a group and are individuals and as such in individual cases have the self-trades of a meagre quantity of 10 shares, 2 shares, 101 shares which may be because of the mistake that may have been committed by the trading dealer. Major participants are those very few in numbers. If at all there can be a group it could only be of ultimate beneficiaries who were working in tandem. 12) Noticees are not at all connected, concerned or interested in the promoters of the company and are not gaining anything out of the alleged transactions. 13) No corresponding movement of shares against the funds movement are with respect to the Noticees. If allegations of SEBI are true then they must have properly taken care of the corresponding considerations in the form of money as well as shares, which are totally missing as per the SEBI analysis.

14) The account for Hardik Pandya was opened without any sort of KYC. The fact came to notice only when the cheque issued was dishonored and a notice under section 138 was received by Hardik Pandya. To the astonishment of Hardik Pandya, Ms. Religare Securities Limited under section 138, the Noticee was informed that the account was operated from Surat, whereas he is a resident of Baroda and has no business relationship in Surat.

8. I have carefully considered the allegations against the Noticees, their replies and the material available on record. 9. A general contention raised by the Noticees is that from the details available in the public domain, it appears that the investigation in the case has still not been completed and SEBI is carrying out some discreet investigation and is concealing information from the Noticees. In this regard, I note that the SCN forming the subject matter of these proceedings was issued to the Noticees only after the investigation in the matter was completed. Further, I note from the record that the information / material which has been relied upon for levelling the allegations against the Noticees is contained in the SCN and there is no material / information which forms the basis of allegations against them and has not been provided to hem. In view of the above, I reject the contentions of the Noticees in this regard. 10. A common contention of the Noticees is that six different SCNs have been sent to them for trading in five scrips, whereas there was only one interim order in the matter.

The Noticees have further contended that there is no rationale for SEBI to do the same and apparently these six different SCNs have been issued as a calculated move to harass them. In this regard, I note that the interim order in the matter was passed on the basis of prima facie findings in respect of the dealings in the five scrips. Since, the entities involved in the trading in the five scrips were common and the time period (being the subject matter of the preliminary inquiry) was common, a combined interim order was passed. Subsequent to the interim order, a detailed investigation was carried out in the matter focusing on each of the five scrips and it was revealed that separate sub-groups out of the larger groups of entities were involved in the alleged violations in different scrips. As a result thereof, it was considered viable to issue six different SCNs in order to clearly bring out the role of each and every entity in respect of the alleged manipulation in the said five scrips. Thus, the rationale behind issuing six different SCNs was to ensure clarity and brevity in the SCNs.

In view of the above, I don’t find any merit in the above contentions of the Noticees. 11. The Noticees have also submitted that they have not been provided the complete investigation report, complete set of trade logs and order logs order and the action proposed chart along with the SCN. Further, some of the Noticees have submitted that the relevant trade logs and order logs were provided to them in a CD format due to which they were unable to purify the data pertaining to them. In this regard, I note from the material available on record that all relevant documents that were relied upon in the SCN have been duly provided to the Noticees. The relevant extracts of the investigation report and the trade logs and order logs related to the transactions carried out by the Noticees were also provided to them. Further, due to the voluminous nature of the trade logs and order logs pertaining to the respective Noticees, the same were provided in a CD. As regards the action proposed report, the same cannot be said to be a relevant document for the Noticees to respond to the allegations levelled in the SCN since the Noticees were notified of every action initiated against them by way of a show cause notice.

Even otherwise, it is important to note that in the present proceedings, every entity, against whom action under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act has been initiated in the scrip of WPPCL, is covered in the SCN, which is a subject matter of consideration in the present proceedings and is being disposed of vide this order. In my view, the documents which were relied upon in the SCN and were provided along with the SCN or upon inspection, were sufficient in order to enable the Noticees to respond to the charges that were levelled in the SCN. I, therefore, reject the contention of the Noticees in this regard. 12. The Noticees have made a common contention that they are not connected / related with each other and do not belong to WSG. They have also contended that their decision to trade in the scrip of WPPCL was an independent one and should not be seen in conjunction with any group. They have further contended that even otherwise, their individual trading in comparison to the total trading of WSG is miniscule and could not have led to any manipulation in the scrip as alleged in the SCN.

In this regard, it is noted that the WSG entities collectively purchased 2,64,36,837 shares accounting for 52.78 % of the total volume traded in the scrip on BSE during the First Investigation Period and sold 1,82,98,802 shares accounting for 36.54 % of the total volume traded in the scrip on BSE during the First Investigation Period. Further, the Noticees collectively purchased 11,66,30,714 shares on BSE accounting for 45.81% of the total volume traded in the scrip on BSE during the Second Investigation Period and sold 11,60,46,856 shares on BSE accounting for 45.58 % of the total volume traded in the scrip on BSE during the said period. 13. It is important to note that the relationship / connection among the WSG entities as illustrated in the SCN has been established on the basis of a multiplicity of factors including family relationship, common address, bank account details, fund movements, share transfers in off-market etc. Other than a general denial, the Noticees have not produced any satisfactory material/documents to dispute the inferences regarding their inter-se relationship brought out in SCN.

In my view, it cannot be a mere coincidence that the Noticees while trading in the scrip of WPPCL ended up trading amongst each other only and collectively contributed to more than 50% of the total traded volume during the investigation period. Further, the details of the synchronized and self-trades among the Noticees were also provided to the Noticees in the SCN in response whereof they have not provided any cogent explanation. In view of these facts and circumstances, I find that the Noticees are connected to each other and were a part of the WSG as mentioned in the SCN.

14. The Noticees have submitted that except for the rare off-market transactions mentioned by them in their replies, all their transactions were placed on the anonymous trading platform of stock exchange and by no stretch of imagination, he could be aware of the counterparty. On the basis thereof, the Noticees have contended that their transactions were not synchronized and cannot be said to have created a false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market or entering into transactions without the intention of performing them. In this regard, I note from the record that several of the trades were synchronised amongst the members of WSG, including the noticees. During the First Investigation Period on BSE, out of the total trading of 98,66,868 shares within the group entities, for 45,99,077 shares accounting for 9.18% of the market volume the buy and sell orders were placed within one minute of each other. These 45,99,077 shares constituted 17.39% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 25.13% of the total sale of the WSG entities. Out of these 45,99,077 shares, the buy and sale orders with respect to 7,21,545 shares accounting for 1.44% of the total market volume, were placed in such a manner that the difference between placement of order by buyer and seller was within one minute of each other and the price at which the orders were placed as well as the quantity of both the buy and sell orders were same. These 7,21,545 shares constituted 2.73% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 3.94% of the total sale of the WSG entities. The particulars of the synchronised trades carried out by WSG entities including the Noticees are as under: Table 3 - Synchronized trades by WSG including the Noticees during the first investigation period.

% of sync % of trades sync to trades total to % of buy Synchron % of total Synchronised Market by ised sale Market sell by Buy client name buy trades Volume client trades Volume client Santosh Deshmal Oswal 9,680 0.02 1.75 0 0.00 0.00 Pradeepkumar Jashbhai Patel 2,100 * 0.97 2,400 * 2.27 Amar Premchand Walmiki 40,299 0.08 1.10 45,887 0.09 2.22 Bharat Shantilal Thakkar 32,639 0.07 54.98 37,053 0.07 66.92 Ragini Bipinbhai Thakkar 0 0.00 0.00 1,500 * 0.69 Bipin Jayant Thaker 7,800 0.02 20.55 7,496 0.01 23.06 Navneetlal Jeevanlal Gandhi 50 * 0.02 2,124 * 0.63

Rajesh Ravinarayan Hati 697 * 0.13 7,660 0.02 2.41 Chirag Rajnikant Jariwala 18,800 0.04 38.96 11,537 0.02 30.44 Kishore Chauhan 30,530 0.06 17.02 58,737 0.12 37.81 Tushar Rameshbhai Patel 11,000 0.02 0.95 20,763 0.04 4.63 Shashikant Keshavlal Shah 22,800 0.05 10.93 5,000 0.01 2.63 Samir Sureshbhai Shah 1,924 * 0.25 250 * 0.05 Manoj Bhandari 2,500 * 0.38 21,250 0.04 4.29 Samirkumar Kanubhai Patel 0 0.00 0.00 490 * 1.19 Santosh Vishram Ghadshi 63,856 0.13 5.76 15,065 0.03 1.94 Jignesh C. Shah 0 0.00 0.00 3,000 0.01 2.67 Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh 4,038 0.01 1.92 0 0.00 0.00 Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi 2,301 * 0.55 17,310 0.03 4.46 Aditi M Gandhi 476 * 0.13 10,000 0.02 3.01 Bhavesh Pabari 25,792 0.05 18.33 22,465 0.04 11.07 Rekha Bhandari 0 0.00 0.00 12000 0.02 5.09 Prem Mohanlal Parikh 12,000 0.02 8.88 9,865 0.02 9.37 Sunil Bhandari 19,320 0.04 5.28 2,990 0.01 2.71 Nareshbhai Devabhai Patel 1,227 * 0.42 1,500 0.00 2.07 Kaushik Rajnikant Mehta 45,490 0.09 18.21 22,376 0.04 14.21 Hemant Madhusudan Sheth 77,695 0.16 21.17 30,573 0.06 11.46 Ashokkumar Bhikhalal Parmar 2,000 * 0.73 2,000 * 3.17 Manisha Navneetlal Gandhi 8609 0.02 1.00 424 - 0.11 Pandya Yaminiben M 29,350 0.06 1.04 81,111 0.16 3.83 Pandya Hardik M 33,900 0.07 1.44 62,298 0.12 3.90 Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Parmar 13,905 0.03 11.86 0 0.00 0.00 Laxman Dhirubhai Parmar 42,574 0.09 1.90 68,679 0.14 3.22 Shobhnaben R Parmar 35,323 0.07 1.85 32,574 0.07 2.36 Rameshbhai V Parmar 0 0.00 0.00 10,000 0.02 1.80 Amisha Samir Patel 0 0.00 0.00 4,010 0.01 7.48 Vipul Hiralal Shah 69,532 0.14 19.29 29,060 0.06 8.52 Dipika Dinesh Kankaria 14,392 0.03 7.71 8,890 0.02 5.33 Shreedhar Yellaiah Kodam 5,486 0.01 1.24 14,163 0.03 3.31 Ankit Sanchaniya 19,001 0.04 15.62 30,050 0.06 26.16 Vivek Kishanpal Samant 14,459 0.03 30.00 8,995 0.02 38.47 Total 7,21,545 1.44 2.73 7,21,545 1.44 3.94

15. Similarly during the second investigation period, out of the total trading of 5,59,14,388 shares within the group entities, for 1,72,17,572 shares accounting for 6.76% of the market volume the buy and sell orders were placed within one minute of each other. These 1,72,17,572 shares constituted 14.76% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 14.84% of the total sell of the WSG entities. Out of these 1,72,17,572 shares, the buy and sell orders with respect to 14,27,634 shares accounting for 0.56% of the total market volume, were placed in such a manner that the difference between placement of order by buyer and seller was within one minute of each other and the price at which the orders were placed as well as the quantity of both the buy and sell orders were same. Further, it is important to note that 14,27,634 shares constitutes 1.22% of the total purchase of WSG entities and 1.23% of the total sale of the WSG entities. The particulars of the synchronised trades carried out by WSG entities including the Noticees during the second investigation period are as under: Table 4 - Synchronized trades by WSG including the Noticees during the second investigation period

% of sync trades % of sync to buy % of sync % of sync total trades to trades to sell trades sell Synchronised market total buy by Synchronised to market by Client Name buy trades Volume client sell trades Volume client Anand Finstock Services Ltd 0 0.00 0.00 24,990 0.01 0.45 Amar Premchand Walmiki 65,000 0.03 0.58 0 0.00 0.00 Tushar Rameshbhai Patel 49,200 0.02 1.11 50,000 0.02 1.20 Santosh Vishram Ghadshi 16,458 0.01 0.19 2,998 * 0.04 Jignesh C. Shah 0 0.00 0.00 14,604 0.01 1.58 Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi 14,604 0.01 0.26 50,000 0.02 0.87 Aditi M Gandhi 0 0.00 0.00 45,426 0.02 0.75

Avinash Bothra 56,196 0.02 4.89 66,109 0.03 4.44 Rekha Bhandari 0 0.00 0.00 1,81,267 0.07 9.57 Sunil Bhandari 14,1,366 0.06 8.32 23,004 0.01 1.03 Kaushik Rajnikant Mehta 39,899 0.02 1.41 20,000 0.01 0.83 Ashokkumar Bhikhalal Parmar 89,901 0.04 3.38 0 0.00 0.00 Vishal Pare 0 0.00 0.00 2,47,000 0.10 5.75 Pandya Yaminiben M 26,530 0.01 0.39 49,001 0.02 0.66 Pannalal Ukaram Prajapati 74,990 0.03 11.96 23,000 0.01 3.53 Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Parmar 1,02,998 0.04 1.01 1,01,040 0.04 1.00 Laxman Dhirubhai Parmar 23,004 0.01 0.47 93,745 0.04 1.67 Shobhnaben R Parmar 39,250 0.02 0.52 72,397 0.03 1.01 Rameshbhai V Parmar 65,109 0.03 1.32 54,205 0.02 1.08 Vipul Hiralal Shah 2,97,184 0.12 6.06 1,98,848 0.08 5.10 Dipika Dinesh Kankaria 2,73,000 0.11 20.16 1,00,000 0.04 6.10 Shreedhar Yellaiah Kodam 2,945 * 0.18 10,000 0.00 0.55 Ankit Sanchaniya 50,000 0.02 50.00 0 0.00 0.00 14,27,634 0.56 1.22 14,27,634 0.56 1.23 16. In my view, placing of buy/sell orders with same counterparties for same quantity of shares at the same price within nil or negligible time difference repeatedly over a period of time is a clear indication that those trades of the Noticees were synchronised/ structured. In this regard, the following observations of the Hon’ble SAT in its order dated July 14, 2006 in the matter of Ketan Parekh vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, is worth mentioning:

“.......... A synchronised transaction will, however, be illegal or violative of the Regulations if it is executed with a view to manipulate the market or if it results in circular trading or is dubious in nature and is executed with a view to avoid regulatory detection or does not involve change of beneficial ownership or is executed to create false volumes resulting in upsetting the market equilibrium. Any transaction executed with the intention to defeat the market mechanism whether negotiated or not would be illegal. Whether a transaction has been executed with the intention to manipulate the market or defeat its mechanism will depend upon the intention of the parties which could be inferred from the attending circumstances because direct evidence in such cases may not be available. The nature of the transaction executed, the frequency with which such transactions are undertaken, the value of the transactions, whether they involve circular trading and whether there is real change of beneficial ownership, 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.” 17. In this case, I note that several synchronized transactions amongst these Noticees were in the nature of self–trades. Some of the Noticees (i.e. Amar Premchand Walmiki, Hardik Maheshbhai Pandya and Rameshbhai Vitthalbhai Parmar) who belonged to WSG also indulged in self-trades on BSE (i.e. buy client as well as the sell client for a given trade was the same resulting in no change of beneficial ownership). The detail of the same is presented as follows: Table 5 - Self trades by WSG including the Noticees during the first investigation period.

% of Name of the % of self client Total buy Total Sell Self self trades No of Trade % of self trades to self trades to to total Market trades total Buy Sell Volume Amar Premchand Walmiki 3659394 2065126 42099 1.15 2.04 0.08 16 Rajesh Ravinarayan Hati 517973 318412 6632 1.28 2.08 0.01 7 Tushar Rameshbhai Patel 1152435 448779 1000 0.09 0.22 0.00 1 Manoj Bhandari 657036 495109 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Santosh Vishram Ghadshi 1107847 777695 22227 2.01 2.86 0.04 8

Manisha Navneetlal Gandhi 862555 397466 280 0.03 0.07 0.00 1 Pandya Yaminiben M 2812779 2118841 811 0.03 0.04 0.00 14 Pandya Hardik M 2350885 1597062 46406 1.97 2.91 0.09 19 Laxman Dhirubhai Parmar 2242500 2133192 977 0.04 0.05 0.00 15 Shobhnaben R Parmar 1908227 1378547 412 0.02 0.03 0.00 14 Rameshbhai V Parmar 814920 556712 2509 0.31 0.45 0.01 2 Grand Total 18086551 12286941 123354 0.68 1.00 0.25 98 Table 6 - Self trades by WSG including the Noticees during the second investigation period. % of % of % of self self self trades trades trades to to to market No of Total Total Self Total total Volum Self Name of the entity buy sell trade qty Buy sell e trades Anand Finstock Services 55,33,4 Ltd 58,53,295 06 1,200 0.02 0.02 * 2 Amar Premchand 1,11,40,6 1,19,35, Walmiki 57 307 306168 2.75 2.57 0.12 15 6,81,20 Ragini Bipinbhai Thakkar 6,63,276 5 1 * * * 1 1,98,23 * Janaki Bipin Thakkar 2,03,369 9 61 0.03 0.03 1 1,24,04 * Samir Sureshbhai Shah 1,86,796 2 2 0.00 0.00 1 72,30,9 Santosh Vishram Ghadshi 84,64,535 29 46,933 0.55 0.65 0.02 11 9,23,36 * Jignesh C. Shah 9,29,653 0 1,001 0.11 0.11 2 Mayank Navnitbhai 57,49,4 * Gandhi 56,12,692 73 101 0.00 0.00 2 60,60,7 * Aditi M Gandhi 56,95,018 08 201 0.00 0.00 2 73,72,1 Pandya Yaminiben M 68,54,348 57 82037 1.20 1.11 0.03 7 73,38,4 Pandya Hardik M 72,40,519 71 4,49,370 6.21 6.12 0.18 17

Bharatkumar Baldevbhai 1,01,80,6 1,00,70, Parmar 88 174 1,60,268 1.57 1.59 0.06 15 71,76,2 Shobhnaben R Parmar 74,86,904 06 1,18,644 1.58 1.65 0.05 22 50,40,7 * * * Rameshbhai V Parmar 49,17,052 89 10 2 39,01,6 Vipul Hiralal Shah 49,03,038 87 1,09,598 2.24 2.81 0.04 2 8,03,31,8 7,93,36, 40 153 12,75,595 1.59 1.61 0.50 102 18. It is also important to note that in all these self trades mentioned above, the buy and sell stock brokers were also the same. The detail of the self trades undertaken by stock brokers is placed below: Table 7 - Stock brokers through whom WSG including the Noticees executed self trades during the first investigation period.

Total Traded No of trades Buy and Sale Member Name Client Name Qty Ami Stock and Share Brokers Amar Premchand Walmiki 8984 6 Pvt. Ltd. Manoj Bhandari 1 1 Pandya Hardik M 54 3 Ami Stock and Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Total 9039 10 Laxman Dhirubhai Parmar 977 15 Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Manisha Navneetlal Pvt. Ltd. Gandhi 280 1 Rameshbhai V Parmar 2509 2 Shobhnaben R Parmar 412 14 Pandya Yaminiben M 811 14 Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Total 4989 46 Grand Total 14028 56 Table 8 - Stock brokers through whom WSG including the Noticees executed self trades during the second investigation period.

Total Traded No of Buy and Sale Member Name Client Name Qty trades Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Aditi M Gandhi 201 2 Pvt. Ltd. Anand Finstock Services Ltd 1200 2 Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi 101 2 Rameshbhai V Parmar 10 2

Pandya Yaminiben M 22037 5 Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Total 23549 13 SSJ Finance & Securities Pvt. Bharatkumar Baldevbhai Ltd. Parmar 10987 9 SSJ Finance & Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total 10987 9 Janaki Bipin Thakkar 61 1 VSE Stock Services Ltd. Jignesh C. Shah 1001 2 Ragini Bipinbhai Thakkar 1 1 Samir Sureshbhai Shah 2 1 VSE Stock Services Ltd. Total 1065 5 Grand Total 35601 27 19. These self-trades clearly did not involve change in beneficial ownership of traded shares and were, therefore, illegal. It is relevant to mention that with regard to the nature and effect of self-trades the Hon’ble SAT, in the matter of M/s. Jayantilal Khandwala & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal no. 24 of 2011 decided on June 8, 2011), has held that “one cannot buy and sell shares from himself. Such transactions are obviously fictitious and meant only to create false volumes on the trading screen of the exchange.” 20. In the facts and circumstances discussed above where the buy / sell trades were carried out amongst entities who were connected to each other as explained above and the said trades were synchronized in terms of price, time and quantity, the argument of the Noticees that the trades were executed on an anonymous trading platform of the stock exchange cannot be sustained.

I, therefore, reject the contentions of the Noticees in this regard. 21. Mr. Bhupesh Rathod has contended that the SCN has given the trading pattern of 50 entities out of total 51 entities and his name is missing from the said list of 51 persons. He further submitted that SEBI did not find any KYC relationship, fund movement or any share movement through off market in his case. In this regard, I note that admittedly, Mr. Bhupesh Rathod purchased and sold shares in the scrip during the investigation period. These transactions were undertaken by him with other entities who belonged to WSG. Mr. Rathod in his reply has admitted that that he had introduced Mr. Hemant Sheth, Mr. Prem M Parikh, Mr. bhavesh P Pabari and Mr. Kishore B Chauvan for their respective trading accounts and the introduction was sought by his broker S.P. Jain Securities Limited. He has however, failed to provide any cogent explanation as to why he introduced certain persons when he did have any connection / relationship with them or did not know them at all. It is also noted that Mr. Rathod also had fund transactions with Mr. Ankit Sanchaniya who is also a part of WSG.

In view of these facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that Mr. Bhupesh Rathod was a part of WSG and even though, individually, his transaction in the scrip of WPPCL were not substantial, his transaction along with the transactions of other

WSG entities had an impact on the price and volume of the scrip of WPPCL as discussed hereinabove. I, therefore, reject the contentions of Mr. Bhupesh Rathod in this regard. 22. I note that some of the Noticees have also stated the role of one Mr Paras Chaplot in perpetuating a fraud on them by using their demat accounts for his own purposes. The Noticees have also furnished copies of the police complaints filed by them. In this regard, I note that these Noticees have themselves submitted that in exchange of a fixed remuneration per month they had allowed Mr. Chaplot to use their trading and bank accounts. Thus, admittedly, these Noticees by their free will for a consideration had allowed Mr. Chaplot to use their account. I find it important to mention here that it is a matter of due diligence to be exercised on part of the Noticees to ensure that their demat accounts are not used/misused by any other entity. The Noticees cannot plead innocence on the ground that they were totally unaware of their demat accounts/ bank accounts and had given complete authority of operating their accounts to Mr. Paras Chaplot.

The documents submitted by the Noticees in support of their contention do not rule out their role in the entire scheme of things alleged in the SCN. Admittedly, the Noticees had also carried out off-market transactions mentioned in the SCN. In these facts and circumstances, in my view, these Noticees cannot escape the consequence of their acts as described in the SCN. I, therefore, reject the contentions of the Noticees in this regard. 23. In view of the foregoing, I find that the Noticees in the present proceedings were related / connected to each other and connived amongst themselves for execution of synchronized and self-trades, creation of artificial volume and price manipulation which distorted the market equilibrium and were fraudulent in nature. The Noticees have therefore violated the provisions of regulations 3 (a),(b),(c),(d), 4(1), 4(2) (a),(b) (e) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations. 24. The Noticees have submitted that based on the same set of facts and transactions as in the instant case monetary penalties were imposed against the Noticees by the adjudicating officer vide his separate order(s) and the Noticees have challenged the said order(s) before SAT.

For such examination it is relevant to refer to the scheme of enforcement actions that SEBI may initiate in such cases under the SEBI Act. It is a settled position that SEBI Act empowers SEBI to take both streams of actions i.e. civil and criminal, if any person contravenes the provisions of the SEBI Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. The civil enforcement actions include directions under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act and imposition of monetary penalty in adjudication proceedings under Chapter VIA of the said Act. The criminal action is by way of prosecution under section 24 of the SEBI Act. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature, gravity and seriousness of violations involved, impact thereof on the investors or the securities market and the illegal gains made or loss avoided, etc., SEBI may initiate one or all of those three actions. It cannot be said that by initiating adjudication proceedings the Board abdicates its power to initiate other actions if the facts of the case warrant multiple enforcement actions. In the instant case, I am satisfied that the contraventions as found in this case are grave and have the potential to disturb the market integrity and disturb the fair, equitable and efficient functioning of the securities market.

In the instant case, the proceedings under sections 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act have been initiated against the Noticees in addition to the adjudication proceedings against them as the charges against the entities are grave and have larger implications on the safety and integrity of the securities market. In my view, for the serious contraventions as found in the instant case, monetary penalty alone would not be sufficient to safeguard the market integrity. In this regard, the following observations of the Hon’ble SAT in the order dated December 02, 2010, in Appeal no. 70 of 2010 – Yashraj Containeurs Ltd. v. SEBI are worth mentioning: “.... we cannot resist observing that in view of the serious allegations made against the appellants which stand established during the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) should not have been content with initiating only adjudication proceedings against the appellants in which only a monetary penalty could be levied. This is a fit case where the Board should have considered initiating proceedings under Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for issuing appropriate directions against the appellants to protect the integrity of the market and the interests of the investors....

This is, indeed a very serious market illegality/irregularity and, in our view, imposing a monetary penalty alone on the company and its promoters will not meet the ends of justice. We are constrained to make these observations because the lenient view taken by the Board does not, in our opinion, protect the integrity of the market and not even the interest of the investors which is its primary duty. This kind of a lenient view will not be a deterrent for others and would send a wrong signal that the delinquent could continue with their nefarious activities by paying a monetary penalty.” 25. I note that vide the interim order dated February 02, 2011, SEBI had restrained, inter alia, the Noticees herein (except Mr Bhupesh Rathod, Mr Jignesh C. Shah, Mr Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh, Mr Spectrum Chemical Pvt. Ltd. and Mr Anand Kalu Marathe) from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or dealing in securities in any manner whatsoever, till further directions. The directions in the interim order qua these Noticees are still in force. I also note from the material on record that Mr. Kishore Chauhan has passed away on May 29, 2013 and therefore, these proceedings against him have abated and the SCN dated November 30, 2014 as against him is disposed off accordingly.

26. It is important to mention that some of the Noticees in the present proceedings, against whom the allegations levelled in the SCN have been established (i.e. Mr. Bhavesh Pabari, Mr. Bipin Jayant Thaker, Mr. Prem Mohanlal Parikh, Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Seth, Ms. Mala Hemant Seth, Mr. Ankit Sanchaniya, Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar, Mr. Bhupesh Rathod and Mr. Bipinkumar Gandhi), have already been restrained by SEBI vide order dated May 13, 2015 in the matter of dealings in the shares of Goldstone Technologies Limited from accessing the securities market and have been further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner for a period of 5 years. Further, Mr. Bhavesh Pabari, Mr. Bipin Jayant Thaker, Mr. Prem Mohanlal Parikh, Mr. Hemant Madhusudan Seth, Ms. Mala Hemant Seth, Mr. Ankit Sanchaniya, and Mr. Bharat Shantilal Thakkar have also been debarred by SEBI vide order dated June 29, 2015 in the matter of dealings in the shares of LGS Global Limited from accessing the securities market and have been further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner for a period of 6 years.

It is noteworthy that the said restraint has been imposed on the Noticees for indulging in fraudulent and manipulative acts in violation of the PFUTP Regulations as has been found in the present case. In my view, repeated fraudulent acts and delinquent behaviour of the erring Noticees does not bode well for the integrity, orderly development and smooth functioning of the securities market. It, therefore, becomes incumbent to deal with contraventions, digression and demeanour of the erring Noticees sternly and take appropriate actions for effective deterrence. 27. In view of the above and considering the repetitive nature of the default by the Noticees noted above, I, in order to protect the interest of investors and the integrity of the securities market, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with sections 11 and 11B thereof and regulation 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 hereby restrain the following entities from accessing the securities market and further prohibit them from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, whatsoever, for the period as mentioned in the table below:

Sr. No. Name of Noticee PAN Period 1 Mr Bharat Shantilal Thakkar AAZPT9542R 7 Years 2 Mr Bipin Jayant Thaker ABYPT4984H 7 Years 3 Mr Prem Mohanlal Parikh ALHPP3489N 7 Years

4 Mr Hemant Madhusudan Seth ANOPS8607E 7 Years 5 Ms Mala Hemant Seth AZXPS0694J 7 Years 6 Mr Ankit Sanchaniya BLNPS3316L 7 Years 7 Mr Bhavesh Pabari AKGPP8679N 7 Years 8 Mr Bipinkumar Gandhi AJHPG6989J 6 Years 9 Mr Bhupesh Rathod AACPR3785K 6 Years 10 Mr Santosh Deshmal Oswal AAAPO2421P 5 Years 11 Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah AGEPS0157L 5 Years 12 Mr Rameshbhai V Parmar ASQPP5072M 5 Years 13 Mr Mayank Navnitbhai Gandhi AKCPG0246Q 5 Years 14 Mr Pandya Hardik M. ARJPP6330Q 5 Years 15 Mr Samir Sureshbhai Shah HUF AGEPS0157L 5 Years 16 Mr Amar Premchand Valmiki AAUPW9971A 5 Years 17 Mr Shalin Kiritkumar Parikh AJAPP5421B 5 Years 18 Mr Jignesh C. Shah AIPPS9125H 5 Years 19 Mr Spectrum Chemical Pvt. Ltd. AAICS2382L 5 Years 20 Mr Anand Kalu Marathe AKWPM0699M 5 Years

28. The period of prohibition already undergone by the Noticees, who were debarred/restrained by the interim order dated February 02, 2011, shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of prohibition imposed vide this order. Further, it is clarified that the restraint/prohibition imposed on the Noticees, to whomsoever applicable, shall run concurrently with the restraint/prohibition imposed by SEBI vide order dated May 13, 2015 in the matter of dealings in the shares of Goldstone Technologies Limited and June 29, 2015 in the matter of dealings in the shares of LGS Global Limited. 29. This order shall come into force with immediate effect. A copy of this order shall be served on all recognized stock exchanges and depositories to ensure that the directions given in the above paragraphs are complied with.

Sd/-

DATE: January 4th, 2016 RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL PLACE: MUMBAI WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA