Order passed in the matter of Hasti Finance Ltd.

Under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 In Re: Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 In respect of: S. No. Name of the Entity PAN 1. Mr. Chetan Mukundrai Parekh ATJPP5058R

In the matter of Hasti Finance Ltd.

BACKGROUND 1. Hasti Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “HFL / Company”) is involved in leasing, hire purchase and investment banking. The company is listed only on BSE. 2. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) conducted an investigation in the scrip of HFL based on a reference received from the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata. The focus of the investigation was to ascertain whether there were any violations of the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”) and SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) by certain

Order in the matter of Hasti Finance Ltd.

entities in the scrip of HFL during the period August 27, 2010 to August 31, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Investigation Period”). 3. During the investigation period, corporate announcements were related to AGMs, declaration of financial results, consolidation of share capital, issuance of GDRs, preferential allotment, and related to disclosures. No major impact of the corporate announcements on the scrip price was observed. Further, it is observed from the Investigation Report (hereinafter referred to as “IR”) that the company showed a rise in profit during the year ended March 2011 from ` 0.06 crore to ` 0.68 crore and thereafter shows a continuous fall between years ended March 2012 to March 2016. The company made a loss of ` 0.05 crore during year ended March 2016. 4. Based on price rise/fall, 6 patches were identified. A brief summary of the said 6 patches is as follows:

Avg. Opening Price / Closing Price Low No. of price High (volume) price(volume) (shares) (volume) Price(volume) Period Date on first during the traded on last during the period day of period (`) / daily day of the (`) / Date the Date during period (`) period(`) the period Pre-Invg. 27/05/2010 20.4 to Price 25.3 23.9 (27/05/2010) 36 (08/07/2010) 26.70 26/08/2010 1 Volume 1420 481 (14/06/2010) 15471(06/07/2010) 1738 Investigation 27/08/2010 Price 18.35 44.75 to 23 84.2 (30/09/2010) 84.75 (06/06/2011) 06/06/2011 Volume 76445 6719 (price rise) 991 10271 1(31/07/2010) (07/04/2011) Investigation 07/06/2011 Price 48.5 70.17 to 86.5 52.5 (17/09/2012) 88.8 (09/06/2011) 08/10/2012 Volume 73460 4653 (price fall) 5607 2307 1(05/09/2011) (05/07/2011) Investigation 09/10/2012 Price 48.1 71.94 to 52.5 84.9 (10/10/2012) 89.65 (30/11/2012) 03/12/2012 Volume 10 77982 9249 (price rise) 1653 14195 (29/11/2012) (26/10/2012) Investigation 04/12/2012 Price 43.20 to 84.65 43.2 (05/04/2013) 84.75 (05/12/2012) 71.70

05/04/2013 Volume 1 21742 (price fall) 5289 1 (28/03/2013) (22/01/2013) 2628 Investigation *11/04/2013 Price 45.35 to 45.35 76.8 (11/04/2013) 80.9 (14/05/2013) 67.34 31/03/2014 Volume 1 (price rise) 1 1 (11/04/2013) 7500 (13/09/2013) 11797 Investigation **09/04/2014 Price 10.8 to 76.8 12.05 (29/07/2015) 76.8 (09/04/2014) 25.10 31/08/2015 Volume 1 24580 (price fall) 3 2 (05/05/2014) (13/08/2014) 746 Post 01/09/2015 Price 10.93 15.49 (30/11/2015) 13 Investigation to 12.05 15.49 (09/10/2015) 30/11/2015 Volume 1 2229 20 18 (19/11/2015) 38838 (30/11/2015 * no trading between April 6, 2013 to April 10, 2013 ** no trading between the period April 1, 2014 to April 8, 2014 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 5. Consequent to the investigation, a show cause notice dated September 26, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was served on Mr. Chetan Mukundrai Parekh (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee”) in the extant matter. The SCN inter alia alleged as follows: a) The LTP analysis of the 6 patches was done and the details of Patch 3 is given below: LTP Analysis: Patch 3 - Price rise patch from October 9, 2012 to December 3, 2012:  During this patch, the scrip price opened at ` 52.50 and closed at ` 84.90. The net rise in the scrip price is ` 32.40. Since this was a price rise patch, buy side of the trades were analysed. On the basis of their net positive LTP contribution as buyers, the following top 10 entities were considered for further analysis:

Sr. Entity All trades LTP Diff. >0 LTP Diff. < 0 LTP Diff. =0 % of No. +ve LTP to Total Mkt +ve LTP LTP Sum of No of LTP Sum of No of LTP Sum of No of Sum of No of impact Quantity trades impact Quanti trades impact Quantity trades Quantity trades ty 1 CHETAN 98.25 27718 412 140.85 8159 140 -42.60 7940 120 11619 152 20.09 MUKUNDRAI PAREKH 2 AMIT 83.55 393 57 95.35 166 39 -11.80 64 8 163 10 13.60 CHOUHAN 3 ASHOK 24.30 11351 154 50.8 927 40 -26.5 7395 71 3029 43 7.25 KUMAR SAMANTRAY 4 DILIP VANVIR 21.15 51673 187 38.40 17772 58 -17.25 12733 55 21168 74 5.48 SHAH 5 NEETA M 16.65 2000 37 16.8 839 23 -0.15 486 2 675 12 2.40 SANKHE 6 SHRAVAN 13.85 11220 116 25.5 1989 37 -11.65 3182 48 6049 31 3.64 KESHUJI CHAVADA 7 BHAVANA 13 418 13 13.3 43 7 -0.30 375 6 0 0 1.90 JITENDRA MAYEKAR 8 PADMANABHA 10.90 3547 28 10.90 1153 11 0 0 0 2394 17 1.55 JAGANNATH KOTIAN 9 VIJAY 7.65 5491 39 14.75 1654 12 -7.10 77 5 3760 22 2.10 GENBHAU GULVE 10 SURENDRA 7.55 645 32 16.10 38 9 -8.15 32 4 575 19 2.30 KUMAR TOWRANI Total LTP of 296.85 114456 1075 422.75 32740 376 -125.50 32284 319 49432 380 60.30 Top 10 entities Remaining -264.45 227788 1580 278.45 59816 327 -543.30 71372 644 96600 609 39.71 entities Market LTP 32.40 342244 2655 701.20 92556 703 -668.80 103656 963 146032 989 100.00

 From the above table, it is noted that top 10 buy entities have contributed ` 422.75 to positive LTP (60.30% of total market positive LTP) out of ` 701.20 total market positive LTP in the price rise period. Net positive LTP contribution of above mentioned entities is ` 296.85.  Out of the total purchase through 412 trades, Noticee contributed ` 140.85 to positive LTP (20.09% of total market positive LTP) through 140 trades. On analysis of these 140 positive LTP contributing trades, it was noted that in 131 trades, the buy orders were placed after respective sell orders. While for the remaining 9 trades, the buy orders were placed before the sell orders. On further analysis of the positive LTP contributing trades of Noticee the following was noted: Sl. Description No. of LTP % of total market No. trades Contribution positive LTP (`) 1 Trades where buy order qty is 1 share 43 68.65 9.79 2 Trades where buy order qty is 2 - 10 shares 26 29.9 4.26 3 Trades where buy order qty is more than 10 71 42.3 6.03 shares 4 All buy trades which contributed to positive LTP 140 140.85 20.09

 As can be seen from the above, out of the 140 buy trades of the Noticee contributing positive LTP of ` 140.85, for 69 trades (49.28% of his total positive trades) the buy order quantity was in the range of 1-10 shares which contributed to positive LTP of ` 98.55 during Patch 3. An illustration of the top 5 positive LTP contributing trades is given below:

Buy Sell Sell Buy Buy Sell Trad LTP Buyer Seller Trade Orde Orde Trade Order Orde Batch Date Order Order e Differ Name Name Time r r Qty Disclos r Time Time Price ence Price Price e Vol Qty. MEETA 13:10:25 13:08:1 VISHWAS 13:10:25. 30.10.2012 CHETAN .153011 2.38716 74 4.2 74 74 1 250 1 KHAJANC 1335400 0 70 HI PANKAJ 12:44:28 12:44:2 JEEVRAJ 12:44:28. 23.10.2012 CHETAN .074128 3.18100 69 4 69 69 1 100 1 KHAJANC 0197410 0 80 HI PANKAJ 12:44:35 12:44:2 JEEVRAJ 12:44:34. 23.10.2012 CHETAN .062289 3.18100 69 3.95 69 69 1 100 1 KHAJANC 9991970 0 80 HI BHARATI 10:00:36 09:59:5 10:00:36. 25.10.2012 CHETAN AMIT .097953 8.44028 67.9 3.9 67.9 67.9 1 30 1 0159260 RUNGTA 0 50

SURENDR 09:16:43 09:16:4 09:16:43. 26.10.2012 CHETAN A KUMAR .396813 3.24935 74 3.85 74.7 74 2 50 2 3763810 TOWRANI 0 80

 As can be seen from the above illustration in respect of 4 out of the top 5 positive LTP contributing trades, while the disclosed volume of the sell orders were large, buy orders were placed for 1 share, for which quantity the above trades were executed. These 5 trades for small quantity were executed on 4 days and contributed to significant positive LTP.  Considering that Noticee had repeatedly entered into such trades (69 instances), it is alleged that Noticee was not acting as genuine buyer and had no bona fide intention to buy because in-spite of large disclosed quantity of sell orders, he was placing small quantity buy orders by matching or placing orders at prices slightly higher than sell order price which were already above LTP thereby contributing to significant positive LTP. It is further alleged from the above trading pattern that the intention of the Noticee was to mark the price higher and not merely to enter into the buy transactions. b) In view of the above it is alleged that the Noticee had manipulated the price of the scrip and created a misleading appearance of trading in the scrip by such trades.

Hence, it is alleged that Noticee has violated Regulations 3(a),(b),(c),(d) and Regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (e) of PFUTP Regulations. c) The Noticee was advised to show cause as to why suitable actions/directions in terms of Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B of SEBI Act should not be initiated against her for the alleged violation of the provisions of PFUTP Regulations. REPLY & HEARING 6. In response to the SCN, the Noticee vide his undated letter (received by SEBI on February 6, 2018) denied the allegations made in the SCN and inter alia submitted as follows: a) The alleged trades are largely day trades which are not even recorded in my books/accounts except as net effects since delivery is neither taken nor given. Similarly payment was neither received nor was taken. Both were netted out. Hence, it is impossible to compile or remember such minute details after such a long period. b) Moreover, he has not been doing any activity in the stock market since last nearly 5 years. Hence, it is very difficult for him to compile the data required and refute the serious allegations made against him. c) During the relevant period he was engaged in jobbing and trading in the stock market.

Most of his trades were intra-day without any delivery. He traded on small price differences usually. His trades were more based on the potential movements in prices and the technicals as anticipated rather than financial and operational fundamentals of the scrips. The idea was rarely to take delivery but to constantly buy and sell and profit from thin margins and sometimes volumes too if the scrip and its volatility is right. As can be seen from the details of his trades in the scrip, even there too, predominantly his trading was without delivery which is consistent with his trading strategy. d) He has traded in several scrips during the period. He has traded in Tata Motors, L & T Financial Holdings, ICIC Bank, IFCI Bank, etc. and many other small and big companies depending on opportunities available for day trading. e) The percentage and volume of his trades in HFL is quite miniscule - less than 1% - of his total trades during that period. Because of relatively poor liquidity, he traded in smaller volumes in the scrip. f) Predominant portion of his trading was day trading where he neither gave nor took delivery of shares.

Since his investment horizon was usually not more than a few minutes or an hour or two, the relevance or question of financials or fundamentals does not arise. Hence, it is submitted that stating that the fundamentals of the company were poor is not relevant in his case and no prejudicial conclusion can be drawn therefrom.

g) He has traded barely for two months in the scrip as compared to the long period of nearly five years which is referred to and investigated in the SCN. Thus, picking his trades of this small period out of total period of five years is unjustified in law and facts. h) It is impossible for any person to be involved in manipulation or even any manipulation to take place if even the alleged involvement is of such a short period of less than 3% of the investigation period/manipulation period. For any manipulation to take place and continue, a constant involvement is required since otherwise the market price and volumes will find the natural course and levels. i) It is evident from the data itself that HFL was an illiquid scrip. As happens in such scrips, the price differences in trades itself is significant. The price at which the share is available for share is much different from the price at which someone is willing to buy. Often, there may be one sided trades only available. Further, a small purchase or sale of shares can promptly result in significant rise or fall in the price of the shares. j) The SCN alleged that his trades were totally of 27,718 shares. This by itself shows that the volume of his trading in the scrip was low. Indeed, even out of this volume, the volume that resulted in higher LTP was only 8,159 shares. Based on such low volumes it has been alleged that his trading resulted in price rising/falling. It is submitted that such rise is absolutely inevitable in case of such extremely illiquid shares. k) It is also to be seen that as per the same table, there are another 7,940 shares worth of trades where the LTP impact is negative. The quantity of these 7,940 shares is nearly the same as the 8,159 shares where the LTP impact is positive. Hence, as per the SCN itself, his trades have contributed to positive LTP and negative LTP of near equal quantity of shares. The SCN states that the price of the shares of HFL during this patch increased. However, if his trades resulted in both positive and negative LTP impact, then it is clear that his role was exactly neutral.

l) It has been stated that in some cases, he has placed order for 1 share to 10 shares even though sell orders was available for higher quantity. On this basis, apparently a prejudicial conclusion/allegation is being drawn. It is submitted that this has no basis and the nature of day trading is not understood or appreciated at all. In case of day trading, the idea is to test the movement in prices and then profit by quick trading - either purchase low and sell high or vice versa. For this purpose, it would be very dangerous to purchase all the shares available at a particular price since this would result, firstly, in shares being received at a higher price and secondly, the price rising further. The standard technique, which day traders know well of day trading is to show interest in purchase but make it clear that purchases would be made at a lower price only. Thus, by purchasing one share, the seller comes to know that there are parties interested in buying but they will buy only if the price is lowered. This results in the seller himself deciding whether he can sell at a lower price.

It is respectfully submit that the SCN has not taken into account the fundamental strategies of day trading at all and thus, drawn wrong and prejudicial and serious conclusions. m) Even otherwise, any person dealing in the market would notice that the volume of trading at higher prices is low and thus would draw the conclusion that the higher price is not being accepted by market. n) It is trite to say that without connection between parties, manipulation in capital markets is not possible. Unless the parties are connected and trade in sync with each other, it is not possible to manipulate the price of the shares. o) It is submitted that for serious allegations of fraud, etc. malice, mens rea, etc. has to be clearly established and this not being done, the allegations fail and these proceedings should be dropped. p) He has carried out his transactions through a duly registered and reputed stock broker. Such brokers would not allow any wrong doing in transactions by their clients. No complaint or restriction has been made by the stock broker who is bound by strict provisions of law of SEBI and stock exchanges.

No complaint or even notice has been issued by the stock exchanges. q) It is seen that long after he had stopped trading, the high price of the shares of HFL remained at that position and indeed even rose further for a fairly long period of time. Had the price risen because of his trades, then the price ought to have promptly fallen after he had stopped trading in the scrip. But that was not so and thus the high price was maintained for reasons totally unconnected with his trading. Either there was sufficient demand at the high price or the sellers were not willing to sell at a lower price. 7. The Noticee has waived of an opportunity of personal hearing in the extant matter. FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS 8. I have perused the SCN, written submissions and other materials available on record. On perusal of the same, the following issues arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Noticee has manipulated the price in the scrip of HFL and created a misleading appearance of trading in the scrip during the period October 9, 2012 to December 3, 2012? (ii) If answer to issue No. (i) is in affirmative, whether the Noticee has violated the provisions of PFUTP Regulations?

(iii) If answer to issue Nos. (ii) is in affirmative, what directions, if any should be issued against the Noticee? 9. Before embarking upon the necessary discussions, I would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of PFUTP Regulations: Regulation 3. Prohibition of certain dealings in securities No person shall directly or indirectly— (a) buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in a fraudulent manner;

(b) use or employ, in connection with issue, purchase or sale of any security listed or proposed to be listed in a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules or the regulations made there under; (c) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with dealing in or issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange; (d) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with any dealing in or issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and the regulations made there under. Regulation 4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securities. (2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if it involves fraud and may include all or any of the following, namely:- (a) indulging in an act which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market; … (e) any act or omission amounting to manipulation of the price of a security; Issue No. 1 - Whether the Noticee has manipulated the price in the scrip of HFL and created a misleading appearance of trading in the scrip during the period October 9, 2012 to December 3, 2012?

10. It is noted from the material made available on record that out of the total purchase through 412 trades, Noticee contributed ` 140.85 to positive LTP (20.09% of total market positive LTP) through 140 trades in the scrip. It is further observed that out of the 140 buy trades of the Noticee contributing positive LTP of ` 140.85, for 69 trades (49.28% of his total positive trades) the buy order quantity was in the range of 1-10 shares which contributed to positive LTP of ` 98.55 during patch 3. It is also noted out of the 140 positive LTP contributing trades, for 43 trades, the buy order placed by the Noticee was for 1 share, even though sell orders were available for higher quantities. 11. The Noticee has submitted that he was doing intra-day trading in the scrip and has never taken delivery in the scrip. He used to square off his position in the scrip at the end of the trading day. He has employed this trading strategy in other scrips also. Further, the alleged trades in the scrip are for a period of less than two months and for any manipulation to take place and continue, a constant involvement is required since otherwise the market price and volumes will find the natural course and levels. 12. The trading pattern of the Noticee in the extant scrip is analysed from the order log trade log and the findings are in the table below. The period of the analysis is same as that of the alleged 69 trades wherein the Noticee has executed trades in miniscule quantity (10 shares or less) i.e., October 18, 2012 to October 30, 2012. Sl. Date Buy order Avg. buy Sell order Avg. sell Closing WAP Volume Spread No. quantity price (`) quantity price (`) price in the (`) in the (High -scrip (`) scrip Low) 1. 18.10.2012 1415 61.50 1415 62.47 60.40 62.23 25569 5.40 2. 19.10.2012 6404 61.65 6404 61.88 61.6 61.65 22595 3.60 3. 23.10.2012 5069 66.08 5069 65.31 64.05 65.63 31832 8.80 4. 25.10.2012 4055 68.18 4055 70.16 71.55 69.11 45857 10.25 5. 26.10.2012 3090 73.69 2627 70.45 74.75 72.83 77982 9.40 6. 29.10.2012 211 74.19 474 72.84 73.45 72.75 8004 7.35

7. 30.10.2012 358 70.78 200 72.5 70 71.03 3492 4.65

13. From the above table, it is noted that the Noticee has squared off his position in the scrip on 4 days out of 7 days when he has executed trades in miniscule quantity in the scrip along with his other trades in the scrip. For the remaining 3 days, the Noticee has sold more shares in the subsequent trading day compared to his buying in the scrip. Noticee had sold 369 shares at ` 70.9 on November 1, 2012 and on that day he did not execute any buy trades. Thus, the Noticee was able to square off his position in the scrip during the period October 18, 2012 to November 1, 2012 albeit for 11 shares which he had sold more than he bought. However, the said 11 shares are a small fraction of his trading in the scrip during the period. Overall the Noticee had bought 26,694 shares and sold 26,705 shares during the period October 18, 2012 to November 1, 2012. Thus, I note that day traders who trade during the course of the day usually net their position like the Noticee and therefore, I find that the Noticee was mostly doing intra-day trading in the scrip. 14. Furthermore it is noted that during the aforesaid 7 trading days the spread (high -low) was in the range of ` 3.60/- to ` 10.25/-.

The said range explains that the scrip was volatile, which could yield good returns in intra-day trading and intra-day traders normally trade with very slight price difference. Therefore, the Noticee being an intra-day trader, could have seen the scrip as the scrip having a good intra-day trading opportunity. However, I hasten to add that it is not in every case where the spread is good, intra-day trading will not result in manipulative trades. 15. I note that trades at higher than LTP, undoubtedly have a potential of raising the price of the scrip and the same gives a wrong impression about the price of the scrip in the market based on miniscule quantities traded. It must not be forgotten that every trade establishes the price of the scrip and trades executed at higher than LTP results in the price of the scrip going up which may influence the innocent/gullible investors. In cases of market manipulation, admittedly, no direct evidence would be forthcoming / available. Manipulative transactions are to be tested on the conduct of parties and abnormality of practices which defy normal logic and laid down procedures.

What is needed, is to prove that in a factual matrix, preponderance of probabilities indicate a fraud. In this regard, the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SEBI Vs. Kishore R Ajmera et.al. decided on February 23, 2016 wherein the Hon’ble Court while deciding the matter under SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations where there was no direct evidence forthcoming, observed as follows: “It is a fundamental principle of law that proof of an allegation levelled against a person may be in the form of direct substantive evidence or, as in many cases, such proof may have to be inferred by a logical process of reasoning from the totality of the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations/charges made and levelled. While direct evidence is a more certain basis to come to a conclusion, yet, in the absence thereof the Courts cannot be helpless. It is the judicial duty to take note of the immediate and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the events on which the charges/allegations are founded and to reach what would appear to the Court to be a reasonable conclusion therefrom.

The test would always be that what inferential process that a reasonable/prudent man would adopt to arrive at a conclusion…” 16. Taking support of the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishore R Ajmera matter, I note that in order to determine whether a trade is manipulative in nature or not, the same has to be inferred from the attending circumstances because direct evidence in such cases may not be available. The list of factors to be taken note of, 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 attending circumstances an inference will have to be drawn. 17. Noticee’s trading in other scrips during the calendar year 2012 was noted. It is observed that the Noticee has traded in over 46 scrips. On a sample basis following 10 scrips were chosen to analyse Noticee’s trading pattern on any given particular day:

Sl. Date Scrip Name No. of Shares No. Bought and Sold 1. 4/2/2012 Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. 32416 2. 11/5/2012 Saksfoft Ltd. 869 3. 12/6/2012 Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. 4472 4. 6/7/2012 Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. 40717 5. 18/10/2012 Zylog Systems Ltd. 17105 6. 18/10/2012 8K Miles Software Services Ltd. 11055 7. 18/10/2012 Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd. 2016 8. 18/10/2012 Fact Enterprise Ltd. 16857 9. 19/10/2012 Aishwarya Telecom Ltd. 5000 10. 11/12/2012 ACI Infocom Ltd. 5000

18. The above table demonstrates the trading strategy of the Noticee of executing intra-day trades. It is also noted that the days (18/10/2012 and 19/10/2012) the Noticee has executed minuscule buy orders in the extant scrip as per his trading strategy, he has executed intra-day trades in other scrips also following the same strategy of buying and selling the same day. Moreover, it is also observed that when the Noticee has executed intra-day trades in the scrips mentioned in the aforesaid table, except in 2 of the said 10 scrips, Noticee has placed buy orders in miniscule quantity (1-11 shares) even when the sell order quantity was for large number of shares. Thus, it can be said that doing intra-day trading and placing buy orders in miniscule quantity even when the sell order quantity is for substantial number of shares, is in the normal course of business of the Noticee. The same pattern was followed by the Noticee in the scrip of HFL. Hence, the trading behavior of the Noticee in other scrips also demonstrates the consistency in his trading behavior including that in the scrip of HFL. 19. In view of the above, the findings that have been gathered from various circumstances for instance the trading strategy of the Noticee, volatility in the scrip when he was trading, the particulars of the buy and sell orders and the trading behavior in other scrips, the totality of the picture that emerges, warrants that the Noticee be given a benefit of doubt. Therefore, considering the material made available on record, I am of the view that the Noticee cannot be said to have manipulated the price in the scrip of HFL and cannot be said to have created a misleading appearance of trading in the scrip during the period October 9, 2012 to December 3, 2012. 20. In view of the aforesaid finding, issues no. 2 and 3 does not require any consideration. ORDER 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me in terms of Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, hereby dispose of the show cause notice dated December 13, 2017 served on Mr. Chetan Mukundrai Parekh (PAN: ATJPP5058R) without any directions. 22. The order shall come into force with immediate effect.

-Sd- DATE: February 7, 2019 MADHABI PURI BUCH PLACE: Mumbai WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA