Siya Bansal And Anr. vs Sebi
- CitationReview Application No. 2 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review of an appellate order lies only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a discovery of new matter that could not have been produced earlier; a factual discrepancy in the recital of the impugned order, which merely reiterates findings of the adjudicating authority, does not warrant review where the correct position leaves the appellant's liability unchanged. A ground not raised in the memorandum of appeal, and not brought to the Tribunal's notice during argument, cannot later be advanced as a ground for review on the basis that the Tribunal failed to consider it. Reliance on a regulatory notice that permits or disapplies a circuit filter does not justify trades executed so as to artificially inflate a scrip's price in contravention of the PFUTP Regulations.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DATE : 05.06.2018
Review Application No. 2 of 2018 In Appeal No. 67 of 2018
1.
Siya Bansal
2. Rajan Bansal H. No. 1082, Satsang Road, Ludhiana, ..... Applicants Punjab, India - 400 059. (Org. Appellants)
Versus
Securities Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C-4A, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, ... Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. (Org. Respondent)
Mr. Saurabh Bachhawat, Advocate with Mr. Manish Bohra, Advocate i/b A. S. Khan & Associates for the Applicants. Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocate i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice J. P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral)
1. This is a frivolous Review Application filed by the applicants seeking
review of order passed in the appeal no. 67 of 2018 on April 6, 2018.
2. By the aforesaid order dated April 6, 2018, this Tribunal upheld the
penalty of Rs. 15 lac imposed on each appellant on ground that the trades
executed by the appellants were in violation of PFUTP Regulations.
3. Counsel for the applicants sought review of order dated April 6, 2018
firstly on ground that in para 3 of the order, it is erroneously stated that the
noticees therein together took the price of KGN scrip from Rs. 149/- to Rs.
500/- within a span of 1 minute and 37 seconds when in fact the price of 2
KGN scrip was increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- within a span of 1
minute 37 seconds. Secondly, it is submitted that this Tribunal failed to
consider the notice dated November 26, 2011 issued by BSE and NSE.
4. We see no merit in the above contentions. In relation to the first
contention it is relevant to note that in para 21 of the order the adjudicating
officer has specifically recorded that the noticees therein, namely, Siya
Bansal and Rajan Bansal and Sandhya Badekar together took the price of
the scrip from Rs. 149/- to Rs. 500/- with 11 trades in a span of 1 minute
and 37 seconds. Thus, what is recorded in para 3 of our order dated April
6, 2018 is nothing but reiteration of the findings recorded by the A. O.
During the course of arguments advanced on April 6, 2018 it was not
brought to our notice the aforesaid discrepancy. In any event, even if the
applicants were responsible for the price rise from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/-
instead from Rs. 149/- to Rs. 500/-, the applicants would still be guilty of
violating the PFUTP Regulations. Hence, review is not warranted on the
first ground raised by the applicants.
5. Second plea raised by the applicants that this Tribunal in the order
dated April 6, 2018 has failed to consider the notice dated December 26,
2011 is equally without any merit, because, firstly, neither the notice dated
December 26, 2011 was annexed to the memo of appeal nor brought to
notice of this Tribunal during the course of arguments. Therefore, it does
not lie in the mouth of the applicants to contend that this Tribunal failed to
consider the said notice dated December 26, 2011. Secondly, fact that the
said notice dated December 26, 2011 recorded that there would be no
circuit filter in the equity shares on KGN Enterprises Ltd. on the date of
listing would not entitle the applicants to enter into irregular trades so as to 3
inflate the share price of the KGN Enterprises Ltd. scrip in violation of the
PFUTP Regulations.
6. In these circumstances, we see no merit in the review application
and, accordingly, dismiss the review application with costs quantified at
Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the applicants to SEBI within a period of one
week from today.
7. Review application is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Justice J. P. Devadhar Presiding Officer
Sd/-
Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member
05.06.2018 Prepared & Compared by PTM
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free