AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date,"Buy Client
Name","Sell Client
Name","Buy and Sell
Member",Exchange,Qty.,"% of the total
Mkt. Vol.
05/03/2012,"Fidelity
Multitrade Pvt.
Ltd","Bharat
Jayantilal Patel","Finquest
Securities Pvt.
Ltd.",NSE,235000,9.53
12/03/2012,"Pasha Finance
Pvt. Ltd.","Fidelity
Multitrade Pvt.
Ltd.",,BSE,244998,11.65
15/03/2020,"Acira
Consultancy
Pvt. Ltd","Pasha Finance
Pvt. Ltd",,BSE,286224,13.62
21/03/2020,"Bharat
Jayantilal Patel","Acira
Consultancy
Pvt. Ltd",,NSE,285224,11.57
planning or liquidity may be the reasons for carrying out those trades. He therefore submitted that on this ground the appeal is required to be allowed.,,,,,,
On the other hand, Mr. Kumar Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the impugned order would show that the investigation was",,,,,,
for a long period of the trading carried out by large number of entities. It has naturally caused delay in starting the proceedings. Therefore, he further",,,,,,
submitted the reasoning of the Whole Time Member as found in the impugned order and submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.,,,,,,
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the appeal deserves to be allowed for the following reason:",,,,,,
a. The facts on record would show that the disputed trades were carried out by the Appellant in the year 2012. The show cause notice was issued to,,,,,,
them on July 10, 2019 i.e. after a gap of 7 years. The very first reaction of the Appellant was that the records of the trades were not available as a",,,,,,
period of 7 years has passed from the date of theses transactions. It is an admitted fact that the Appellants are brokers as well as traders. The,,,,,,
annexures to the reply to the show cause notice would show that in the relevant year itself, the Appellants have traded in 123 shares and turnover was",,,,,,
Rs.576 crores. Therefore for want of record it was not possible for them to explain as to why they carried out the four trades in question.,,,,,,
b. Whether the delay would cause prejudice to the parties depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute on the principle that,,,,,,
if the delay has caused prejudice to the parties then the proceedings are required to be quashed. This Tribunal in the case of Ashok Shivlal Rupani &,,,,,,
Ors. vs. SEBI, Sanjay Jethalal Soni & Ors. vs SEBI and Anilkumar Nandkumar Harchandani & Ors. vs. SEBI cited supra has reiterated this principle",,,,,,
and on facts of those cases set aside the orders passed against them by the Respondent.,,,,,,
c. In the present case, we find that except showing their inability in defending the proceedings the Appellant could not raise any other defense for",,,,,,
want of record. The reasoning recorded by the Whole Time Member in this regard are merely speculative in nature i.e. if the records were maintained,,,,,,
in electronic form they could have been preserved.,,,,,,
d. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. The impugned order passed against the present Appellants is thereby",,,,,,
quashed and set aside.,,,,,,
The present matter was heard through video conference due to Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of this order nor,,,,,,
a certified copy of this order could be issued by the registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed by the Presiding Officer on",,,,,,
behalf of the bench and all concerned parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order. Parties will act on production of a digitally,,,,,,
signed copy sent by fax and/or email.,,,,,,