Corruption Case Filed Against SEBI Chairperson ,Whole Time Directors and BSE Officials At ACB CBI Court Mumbai
भ्रष्टाचार में लिप्त है सेबी के अधिकारी , शिकायत दबाने में माहिर है। बड़ी कंपनी के हितो की रक्षा करते है और इन्वेस्टर्स की अनदेखी। सब कमाने और खाने में लगे है और छोटे लोगो पर ही केस दायर करते है.........
Mumbai: Corruption case against SEBI and BSE top officials filed at Corruption court under CRPC 156(3) by E Filing at Sessions court Mumbai. Investor has invested in Cals refineries LTD Shares Listed at BSE .The company done some irregularities and SFIO inquiry is in process. The trading also stopped by SEBI in this script.
As per BSE record the Cals Refineries LTD listed on 12 Dec 1994 without SEBI compliance . The SEBI passed circular on 18 June 1992 that no issue can be listed at registered exchanges without SEBI compliance . The Cals Refineries listed at BSE without SEBI consent . Due to this fraud investor filed complaint before Scores , SEBI chairperson and WTD Officials of SEBI to take action as per section 15 HA Of SEBI Act 1992 against Cals Refineries and BSE Management. The SEBI has not initially instituted proceedings under the provisions of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 and done settlement with the accused company . They ignored Their duties under section 11 of SEBI Act 1992. BSE and NSE Officials are also public servant under Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act.
The accused officers will not get protection under section 17A of PC act 1988 as it is not their part of duty to ignore complaint and do selective investigation. As per complainant the SEBI and BSE Officials has taken bribe of Rs 10 Lac approx from company to deny action under section 15 HA of SEBI act 1988. The prayer is to register FIR under section 7 and 13 of PC act 1988 by ACB or CBI. As per kerla HC Order State ACB can also take action against Central govt Employee . Soon matter will be listed for hearing before Special Judge under PC act .
SEBI Score and smart OTDR is a failed mechanism and it is designed for minor complaints. The SEBI staff did not take action on listing fraud and close complaint by taking bribe from accused company . The smart OTDR administrator are BSE and NSE officials who list the fake companies without SEBI compliance for listing and trading fees to increase exchange revenue by fraud. So they close OTDR complaint with conflict of interest . There is huge corruption in SEBI and many SEBI officers has fixed package from many corporate to ignore their complaints . Every investor to file corruption case at district Corruption court with ACB or CBI Police station under PC act 1988 under CRPC 156(3) for FIR registration .
| Criminal complaint - LMH20210000216C202400008 | City Sessions Court, Mumbai | Sapan Shrivastava Vs Madhabi Puri Buch |
SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA ...Complainant
VERSUS
1. MADHABI PURI BUCH
Age 55 Approx, Female , Occp: Public servant , Chairperson
SEBI, G BLOCK ,BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51
2. ASHWANI BHATIA
Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: Public servant , WHOLE TIME
MEMBER
SEBI, G
BLOCK ,BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51
ashwani.bhatia@sebi.gov.in
3. ANANTH NARAYAN G
Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: Public servant , WHOLE TIME
MEMBER
SEBI, G
BLOCK BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51
4. KAMLESH CHANDRA
VARSHNEY
Age 55 Approx, Male , Occp: Public servant , WHOLE TIME
MEMBER
SEBI, G
BLOCK BKC, Bandra , Mumbai 51
kamlesh.varshney @sebi.gov.in
5. PRAMOD AGARWAL
Age 60 Approx, Male , Occp: Chairman and Public Interest Directors (BSE)
BSE India
Floor 25, P J Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai
400001
6. SUNDARARAMAN
RAMAMURTHY
Age 60 Approx, Male , Occp: MD and CEO (BSE)
BSE India
Floor 25, P J Towers, Dalal Street, Mumbai
400001
7. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Through Addl CP, ACB ) , Mumbai
8. UNION OF INDIA
(Through Joint Director, CBI) Mumbai ....... Accused
SEBI ACT 1992 as per section 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be duty of the Board to protect the interests of the investors in securities and to promote and development of, and to regulate the securities market by such measures as it thinks fit. (2) (e) prohibiting fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities markets;
SEBI
under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair
Trade
Practices Relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003.
SEBI ACT 1992
15HA. If any person indulges in
fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities, he shall be
liable to a penalty 2[which shall not be less than five lakh
rupees but which may extend to twenty-five crore rupees or three times the
amount of profits made out of such practices, whichever is higher]
1.
REGULATION FOR LISTING ANY
SHARE :
The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act,
1956
THE
SECURITIES CONTRACTS (REGULATION) ACT, 1956
Section 2h means shares
Section 17 A compliance of requirement
(1) Without prejudice to
the provisions contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in
force, no securities of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ie) of clause (h)
of section 2 shall be offered to the public or listed on any recognised stock
exchange unless the issuer fulfils such eligibility criteria and complies with
such other requirements as may be specified by regulations made by the
Securities and Exchange Board of India.
THE POWER OF SEBI AND ITS DUTY PROTECT THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS
The Supreme Court has recently upheld an order
passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 2009
against Rakhi Trading Private Limited and others. The judgement is of significant
importance primarily because it has explained the role of SEBI in the market in
relation to punishing culprits indulging in manipulative practices such as
“synchronized trading,” which is a kind of transaction wherein both the buying
and the selling order quantities are identical and happen on the same time on
the trading platform. The judgement under analysis reiterated the apex court’s
outlook regarding the need of transparent norms of trading in securities and of
fairness, integrity and transparency in the securities market in India.
SC ,SEBI
Vs. Rakhi Trading
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63300860/
CANo.1969/2011,
Order dated February 8, 2018)
“Fairness, integrity and transparency are the
hallmarks of the stock market in India”
.(Paragraph
No. 1 of the
part of the
judgement authored by
His Lordship
Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph).
“...
Nobody intentionally trades for loss. An
intentional trading for loss per se, is not a genuine dealing
in securities. The
platform of the
stock exchange has
been used for a non genuine
trade. Trading is
always with the
aim to make
profits. But if
one party consistently make
loss and that
too in pre planned
and rapid reverse
trades, it is not
genuine; it is an unfair trade practice.”
( Paragraph
No. 35 of the
part of the
judgement authored by His Lordship Mr. Justice
Kurian Joseph).
Their Lordships have considered similar
transactions in the same segment,
“The repeated
reversals and predetermined arrangement
to book profits
and losses respectively, made
it clear that
the
parties were not
trading in the
normal sense and
ordinary
course. Resultantly, there
has clearly been
a restriction on
the free and
fair operation of market forces in the instant case.”
(Paragraph No. 38 authored by His Lordship Mr.
Justice Kurian Joseph)
“ ....The stock market is not a platform for any
fraudulent or unfair trade practice. The
field is open to all the investors. By
synchronization and rapid reverse trade, as has been carried out by the traders
in the instant case, the price discovery system itself is affected.
Except the parties who have prefixed the price,
nobody is in the position to participate in the trade. It also has an adverse impact on the
fairness, integrity and transparency of the stock market.”
(Paragraph No. 41 of the part of the judgement
authored by
His Lordship Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph ).
“The smooth operation of the securities market
and its healthy growth and development
depends
upon large extent
on the quality
and integrity of the market.
Unfair trade practices affect the
integrity and efficiency of the securities market and the confidence of the
investors. Prevention of market abuse
and preservation of market integrity are the hallmark of
securities law ...”
(Paragraph No.38 of the
part of the
judgment authored by Her
Ladyship Ms. Justice
R. Bhanumathi). For this, the
Hon’ble Judge also relied
on the apex
court observations in N.
Narayanan
Vs. Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India(2013)
12 SCC 152 wherein it was inter alia observed
: “Market abuse” impairs economic growth and
erodes investor’s confidence.
“Where certain unscrupulous elements are trying
to manipulate the market to serve their own interest, it becomes imperative on
the part of SEBI to intervene and to curb further mischief and to take
necessary action to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the
securities market...”
(Paragraph No.42 of the part of the judgment
authored by
Her Ladyship Ms. Justice R. Bhanumathi
SEBI Vs. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai
Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1, which are as under: -
“The definition of 'fraud', which is an
inclusive definition and, therefore, has to be understood to be broad and
expansive, contemplates even an action or
omission, as may
be committed, even without any deceit if such act or omission has the effect of
inducing another person to deal in securities. Certainly, the definition expands
beyond what can be normally understood to be a 'fraudulent act' or a conduct
amounting to 'fraud'. The emphasis is on the act of inducement and the scrutiny
must, therefore, be on the meaning that must be attributed to the word
“induce”…… ……to make inducement an offence the intention behind the
representation or misrepresentation of facts must be dishonest whereas in
the
latter category of cases like the present the element of dishonesty need not
be
present or proved and established to be present. In the latter category of
cases,
a mere inference, rather than proof, that the person induced would not
have
acted in the manner that he did but for the inducement is sufficient.”
Further,
in the case of SEBI Vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368, the Hon’ble
Supreme
Court observed that,
“the SEBI Act and the Regulations framed
there under are intended to protect the interests of investors in the
Securities Market which has seen substantial growth in tune with the parallel
developments in the economy. Investors' confidence in the Capital/
Securities Market is a reflection of the effectiveness of the regulatory
mechanism in force. All such measures are intended to preempt manipulative
trading and check all kinds of impermissible conduct in order to boost the
investors' confidence in the Capital market. The primary purpose of the
statutory enactments is to provide an environment conducive to increased
participation and investment in the securities market which is vital to the
growth and development of the economy. The provisions of the SEBI Act and the
Regulations will, therefore, have to be understood and interpreted in the above
light”.
FACTS SUPPRESSED IN DRHP CASE:
Delhi High Court
Kimsuk Krishna Sinha vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India &
... on 9 April, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2010 DEL 1
7. In counter affidavit dated 11th July 2008 filed on behalf
of the SEBI a preliminary objection was taken that the Petitioner is not an
investor in the securities market and therefore, has no locus standi to file
this petition. It was contended that SEPL is an unlisted company and therefore,
is not amenable to the SEBI regulations and guidelines.
26.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to the SEBI to undertake an investigation
into the aforementioned complaints made by the Petitioner and also the
averments made in the affidavits and additional affidavits filed by the
Petitioner in the instant case. The said inquiry will be undertaken in
accordance with law by the SEBI and completed within a period of three months
from today. The SEBI will communicate to the Petitioner a copy of report of
investigation together with its decision thereon within a further period of two
weeks thereafter. If it comes to a conclusion that any consequential action is
to be taken the SEBI will do so without awaiting further directions.
27. It is
clarified that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the contentions
of the parties. The SEBI will proceed in the matter independent of any
observations that may have been made by this Court in its previous orders or
this order. It will be open to any of the parties, if aggrieved by the decision
of the SEBI, to seek appropriate remedies that are available to them in law.
28. The
petition and the pending applications are disposed of.
Comments
Post a Comment