AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr. No.,Name,"No. of shares during on Dec 17-19, 2008",,,,
1.,RAJESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,"49,216",,,,
2.,SHAILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,"8,336",,,,
3.,NIRMAL ROHITBHAI SHAH,"24,723",,,,
4.,DEVANG R SHAH,"30,044",,,,
5.,RITABEN ROHITKUMAR SHAH,"22,000",,,,
6.,JAYANTILAL RATILAL SHAH,"5,000",,,,
7.,BINABEN SHAILESHKUMAR SHAH,"10,002",,,,
8.,NAMITABEN SACHINKUMAR SHAH,"3,500",,,,
9.,SACHIN JAYANTILAL SHAH,"10,000",,,,
10.,MANISHABEN RAJESHKUMAR SHAH,"5,000",,,,
11.,JINNY NIRMAL SHAH,"2,500",,,,
,Total,"1,70,321",,,,
Sr. No.,Name,"No. of Shares
Bought on Dec
17-19, 2008",Buy rate,Sale rate,"Difference in Buy
and Sell rate","Undue Profit made
(Rs.)
1.,"RAJESH
JAYANTILAL SHAH","49,216",63.34,82.52,19.18,"943,851.96
2.,"SHAILESH
JAYANTILAL SHAH
(Deceased)","8,336",69.67,80.98,11.31,"94,261.81
3.,"NIRMAL
ROHITBHAI SHAH","24,723",63.25,79.09,15.84,"391,518.03
4.,DEVANG R SHAH,"30,044",65.59,77.52,11.93,"358,548.39
5.,"RITABEN
ROHITKUMAR
SHAH","22,000",73.30,79.45,6.15,"135,400.00
6.,"JAYANTILAL
RATILAL
SHAH(Deceased)","5,000",61.00,76.18,15.18,"75,879.72
7.,"BINABEN
SHAILESHKUMAR
SHAH","10,002",61.25,75.92,14.67,"146,692.11
8.,"NAMITABEN
SACHINKUMAR
SHAH","3,500",60.63,75.71,15.08,"52,776.79
9.,"SACHIN
JAYANTILAL SHAH","10,000",61.05,77.30,16.25,"162,500.00
10.,"MANISHABEN
RAJESHKUMAR
SHAH","5,000",63.07,78.70,15.63,"78,174.10
11.,"JINNY NIRMAL
SHAH","2,500",75.00,70.46,-4.54,-
,Total,"1,70,521",,,,"24,39,602.91
Though the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is a delay in the proceeding, the documents filed by the appellants themselves would",,,,,,
show that before the WTM they were pressing time and again for more documents from the respondents before filing reply to the show cause notice.,,,,,,
Even though a compact disk was supplied to them the demand continued which ultimately led to filing of reply belatedly. Though the practice of,,,,,,
keeping temporary prohibitory order continuing for a long period cannot be accepted, it is to be noted that ultimately the said order is revoked.",,,,,,
Therefore, the issue does not survive.",,,,,,
The WTM had taken into consideration the earlier dealing of the appellants in the scrip of PSTL wherein the appellants were charged for last,,,,,,
traded price manipulation. The appellants and deceased noticees were exonerated from the charges and only charge remained for trading of the,,,,,,
appellants and deceased noticees for a period from December 17 to 22, 2008. The trading of period of December 16 is also taken into consideration",,,,,,
by the WTM. However, finding that there was sudden increase in purchase of the shares of PSTL by the appellants and the deceased noticees during",,,,,,
December 17-19, 2008 as detailed (supra) and off-loading of all those shares on December 22 before 10:30 am as detailed (supra), the order was",,,,,,
passed.,,,,,,
It is an admitted fact that Nirmal Kotecha had close relations with the appellants. Many business transactions as well as gratuitous transactions of,,,,,,
advancing interest free loan between them is an admitted fact. Out of interest free loan granted by Nirmal Kotecha to the appellants, admittedly",,,,,,
appellants utilized some portion for the business purpose. Admittedly, they always had telephonic conversation. Admittedly, the appellants form a",,,,,,
family group as further explained in the paragraph 1 of the synopsis itself. The appellants had pleaded before the WTM that the proceedings against,,,,,,
them be kept in abeyance till the proceedings against Nirmal Kotecha would come to an end i.e. appeal filed by Nirmal Kotecha in this Tribunal is,,,,,,
decided. Judicial notice can be taken that the appeal filed by Nirmal Kotecha, i.e. Appeal No. 261 of 2018 is finally dismissed by this Tribunal on merit",,,,,,
on 02.03.2020 holding him guilty of causing false media report causing the rise in the price of the scrip as detailed in the above table.,,,,,,
In the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned WTM needs no interference.",,,,,,
The learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record a number of decisions rendered by this Tribunal, wherein on fact this Tribunal has held",,,,,,
that the delay in proceeding has caused prejudice to the noticees therein. In other cases relied by the appellants, on facts fraudulent or unfair trading",,,,,,
was not found. To put the record straight the following judgements were relied by the appellants:- Sanjay Gupta vs SEBI (Appeal No. 89 of 2019,,,,,,
decided on June 04, 2019), Kapil Chatrabhuj Bhuptani vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 95 of 2013 decided on October 10, 2013, KSL & Industries",,,,,,
Ltd. vs SEBI (Appeal No. 9 of 2003 decided on September 30, 2003 etc .However, finding that the facts are different in the present case, the",,,,,,
ratio of any of the judgments would not be applicable in the present appeal.,,,,,,
In the result, the following order:-",,,,,,
ORDER,,,,,,
The appeal is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.,,,,,,