BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER SECURITIES AND … · Page 3 of 32 (hereinafter referred to as “Live Star”), SRS Portfolio Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SRS”) and MSR

Page 1 of 32

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

[ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. PB/AO- 36/2012]

__________________________________________________

UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995

In respect of

Ms. Pooja Menghani

(Pan No.: ANWPM1417C)

FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as

“SEBI”) conducted investigation in the trading of Ms. Pooja

Menghani (hereinafter referred to as “PM/Noticee”) for the period

from June 01, 2008 to January 12, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as

“investigation period”).

2. The findings of the examination led to the allegation that the Noticee

had violated the provisions of regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1) of

SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to

Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as

“PFUTP Regulations” ) and consequently, liable for monetary

Page 2 of 32

penalty under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of

India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).

APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER

3. The undersigned has been appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide

order dated March 30, 2011 under section 15 I of the SEBI Act read

with rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing

Penalty by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under section 15HA of

the SEBI Act.

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING

4. Show Cause Notice No. EAD-7/PB/SS/19651/2011 dated June 20,

2011 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee

under rule 4 of the Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should

not be initiated and penalty be not imposed under section 15HA of

SEBI Act for the violation as alleged in the SCN.

5. It was alleged in the SCN that Noticee had bought and sold equal

quantities of shares in large volume in four scrips, namely Amtek

Auto Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Amtek Auto”), Amtek India Ltd

(hereinafter referred to as “Amtek India”), Monnet Ispat Ltd

(hereinafter referred to as “Monnet Ispat”) and Ahmednagar

Forgings Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Ahmednagar Forging”)

through Religare Securities Limited (hereinafter referred to as

“Religare”), ISF Securities Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ISF”),

India Infoline Securities Limited (hereinafter referred to as “India Infoline”) and Narayan Securities Private Limited (hereinafter

referred to as “Narayan”). Further, Live Star Marketing Pvt. Ltd

Page 3 of 32

(hereinafter referred to as “Live Star”), SRS Portfolio Limited

(hereinafter referred to as “SRS”) and MSR Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as “MSR”) were also the clients of Religare.

The aforesaid entities i.e. Live Star, SRS, MSR have also traded in

the said scrips during the investigation period. Further, it was alleged

that Noticee has traded in the above mentioned scrips ahead of Live

Star, SRS and MSR with prior knowledge of the buy orders of

aforesaid entities and has done front running in the said scrips which

resulted in violation of provisions of regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and

4(1) of PFUTP Regulations.

6. The aforesaid SCN was sent to the Noticee through SPAD. The said

notice was delivered to the Noticee. However, the Noticee did not

submit reply to the SCN.

7. In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry in

terms of rule 4(3) of the Rules, an opportunity of personal hearing

was granted on September 22, 2011 vide notice dated September

06, 2011. An adjournment of hearing was sought by eight weeks vide

letter dated September 20, 2011. Acceding to the request, another

opportunity of hearing was granted on December 15, 2011 vide

notice dated November 28, 2011. An adjournment of hearing was

sought by six to ten weeks vide letter dated nil received on December

12, 2011. It was further requested to shift the place of hearing from

Mumbai to Delhi. Acceding to the request, another opportunity of

hearing was granted on February 10, 2012 vide notice dated January

12, 2012 at Securities and Exchange Board of India, Northern

Regional Office, Delhi. M.G. Associates, Advocates & Solicitors,

Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to as “AR”) of the

Noticee vide letter dated February 10, 2012 submitted that. T.P.

Singh will appear on behalf of them on the date of hearing. AR

Page 4 of 32

appeared on February 10, 2010 and submitted the power of attorney

executed by the Noticee in favour of AR. Upon perusal of the power

of attorney, it was observed that power of attorney did not have the

reference of SEBI adjudication proceedings and date of power of

attorney. The AR undertook to submit the fresh power of attorney by

February 13, 2012. During the course of hearing the AR submitted

inter-alia as under:

“I hereby submit letter dated February 10, 2012 from M.G. Associates,

Advocates and Solicitors. It is submitted that we have been recently engaged

by the Noticee. We need some more time to prepare for the case. It is

requested that one month time may be granted to the Noticee to go through

the files and submit written submissions in the matter. It is submitted that no

further hearing is requested for by the Noticees and the Adjudicating officer

is requested to consider the written submissions which will be filed in one

month time and pass the final order on the basis of same.”

8. The Noticee requested one month’s time to submit the written

submissions. Acceding to the request of the Noticee, such time was

granted to the Noticee.

9. The Noticee vide letter dated March 03, 2012 submitted the Power of

Attorney. The Noticee further requested for four weeks time to submit

the written submissions. The Noticee vide letter dated April 05, 2012

filed the written submissions inter-alia as under:

“ Sir, going by your allegations listed above, it is clear that the basis of your allegations is that our client Ms Pooja was introduced by Sh Deepak Khurana to Religare and he might have passed on some advance information to our client to enter the deal which turned out to be lucrative., Sir with utmost modesty to our credit, we state that there is nothing on record to substantiate your allegations against our client Ms Pooja Menghani. It has nowhere been proved that there was a mischievous connivance between Deepak Khurana and Ms Pooja Menghani. The fact is that Ms Pooja Menghani was a random & innocent investor and was relying on her own competence, instincts or intuition before

Page 5 of 32

entering into the deals. It has nowhere been proved that Ms Pooja defied any norms or submitted wrong financials to the company. She went through KYC norms and it was for Religare to ensure and decide to whom to extend credit or not. The statements of both Pooja Menghani and Sh Deepak Khurana were recorded by your honour and nowhere the statements contradict their version. It has been squarely stated by Sh Deepak Khurana that he met Pooja Menghani during KYC norms and has nothing personal with her and these facts have been stated by Pooja Menghani too. It will not be out of place to mention that even Religare during its internal enquiry have not found anything amiss with the conduct of Sh Deepak Khurana, nor they have given a finding that Sh Deepak Khurana has extended any favors to our client Ms Pooja Menghani. It is very important to note that the penalty proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and a penalty cannot be levied on assumptions. There is nothing on record to prove that proves that our client has rigged the deals. It is of vital importance to know that Ms Pooja Menghani belongs to a lower middle class who resides with her retired father and mother in a small flat in the refugee colony of New Delhi at Rajinder Nagar. She has been working with banking sector at junior level and is not a person of means or can afford or dare to violate any laws. Currently she is suffering from a mental agony and pain due to certain personal reasons. These facts are essential to mention because this proves that she cannot be scheming about frauds. Her father is a retired govt. servant, her mother (seriously ill) is a retired govt, teacher.

As regards the matching of buy order with that of another broker's sale order could be a matter of chance, coincidence or matching sale/ purchase order by the buyer or seller as obvious from the net. You must appreciate that Religare was the buyer's as well as seller's broker in Ahmednagar Forging and Amtek Auto which goes to prove that Religare would not side/pitch one investor against the other investor.

It is further submitted that there was no intention to commit any fraud, there is no connivance with the broker, or the investee company resulting into extra ordinary gains.

Our client Pooja Menghani is a bonafide investor who is a client of Religare and has complied with KYC norms. The investments made are by selecting randomly from the scrip by gathering market information and have got nothing to do with any manipulations.

The fund invested is from personal savings about which proper Income Tax returns have been regularly filed.

It is hoped that your honour will find the above in order and will proceed to close the matter or if necessary a personal hearing be accorded to us to explain the matter personally.”

Page 6 of 32

CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS

10. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are :

a) Whether the Noticee had violated regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and

4(1) of PFUTP Regulations?

b) Does the violation, if any, on the part of the Noticee attract

monetary penalty under sections 15 HA of SEBI Act?

c) If so, what would be the monetary penalty that can be imposed

taking into consideration the factors mentioned in section 15J of

SEBI Act?

11. Before moving forward, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant

provisions of PFUTP Regulations, which reads as under:

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;

Page 7 of 32

(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.

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.

12. Upon perusal of the documents available on record, I find the

following:

Findings in respect of trading of Noticee in the scrip of Amtek Auto

i. It is observed from NSE trade log that, Noticee has traded in the

scrip of Amtek Auto on the following days during the investigation

period.

Page 8 of 32

Date Broker for Pooja Menghani

Pooja Menghani’s Buy quantity

Pooja Menghani’s Sell quantity

Counter Major Buy client

Counter Buy Broker of Major client

Matched Buy Quantity of Counter Major Buy client

Total Buy Quantity of Major Buy Client

02/07/08 India Infoline

40 ---- -- --- --- ------

03/07/08 Narayan 16,275 16,275 CF3 Sunglow 7,139 101,27315/10/08 Religare 50,000 50,000 MP3252 Religare 50,000 121,00016/10/08 Religare 28,000 28,000 MP3252 Religare 28,000 39,15617/10/08 Religare 6,324 6,324 CF1 Sunglow 5,717 67,00020/10/08 Religare 23,547 23,547 MP3252 Religare 23,544 41,68423/10/08 Religare 26,605 26,605 MP3252 Religare 26,605 72,00024/10/08 Religare 14,061 14,061 MP3252 Religare 14,060 18,13431/10/08 Religare 50,000 50,000 MP3252 Religare 50,000 110,00007/11/08 ISF 18,180 18,180 MP3252 Religare 15,033 23,70010/11/08 ISF 34,560 34,560 MP3252 Religare 29,005 43,00012/11/08 ISF 10,000 10,000 MP3252 Religare 9,843 20,00017/11/08 Religare 40,000 40,000 ---- ---- ---26/11/08 ISF 50,000 50,000 MP3252 Religare 50,000 52,03928/11/08 ISF 2,362 2,362 ---- ----- ----TOTAL 3,69,954 3,69,914 3,08,946 7,08,986

( MP 3252 : MSR Marketing Pvt. Ltd.// CF 3: SRS Portfolio Ltd.)

ii. The table given above reveals the following :

The Noticee traded in the scrip of Amtek Auto through Religare

for 15 days whereby the Noticee has bought 3,69,954 shares

and sold 3,69,914 shares. Further, on 14 days the Noticee

squared off the position at the end of each day.

Out of 15 days, on 10 days sell orders of the Noticee matched

with the buy orders placed by MSR through Religare

constituting 2,96,090 shares, which is 80.4% of gross sell of the

Noticee.

Page 9 of 32

MSR has bought the shares of said scrip on 12 days, out of

which on 10 days the sell orders placed by the Noticee matched

with those of MSR. Further, on all the 10 days, both the Noticee

and MSR had placed orders through Religare.

iii. The analysis of the orders placed by the Noticee and MSR is as

under:

Date Pooja Menghani’s Buying/ (Selling) Period (Order Log)

Pooja Menghani’s Limit Price range

Sell LTP prior to order entry

MP3252 (MSR) Buy order period

MP3252 (MSR) Buy Limit Price

12:01:05 to 15:17:09

101.5 to 105

NA NA NA 15/10/2008

15:11:13 to 15:11:52

108.5 to 109

102.6 15:12:35 to 15:24:53

102 to 110

13:05:56 to 14:39:23

93 to 103 NA NA NA 16/10/2008

14:39:51 105 101 14:39:56 to 14:40:32

102 to 105

12:32:23 to 15:14:33

100.5 to 103

NA NA NA 20/10/2008

15:13:39 to 15:15:00

105.5 to 106

103 to 103.9

12:40:43 to 15:17:58

101.5 to 106

10:19:27 to 12:52:16

85 to 87 NA NA NA 23/10/2008

13:53:46 89.9 89.1 10:21:39 to 14:15:40

85 to 90

12:20:56 to 12:21:07

66.5 to 67 NA NA NA 24/10/2008

13:03:24 69 68.05 12:41:50 to 13:04:50

67.5 to 69

14:33:51 to 15:11:32

72 to 73 NA NA NA 31/10/2008

15:13:46 75 72.5 15:00:32 to 15:16:54

72 to 75.5

13:21:12 to15:16;22

69 to 71 NA NA NA 07/11/2008

15:02:46 to 15;23:54

70 to 70.9 70.6 to 71.9

15:08:37 to 15:25:11

70 to 70.9

11:24:33 to 13:49:40

68.5 to 69.6 NA NA NA 10/11/2008

13:40:25 71 69.95 14:28:12 to 71

Page 10 of 32

14:28:55 14:38:40 to

15;02:25 63.5 to 64.5 NA NA NA 12/11/2008

15:08:13 65.8 63.35 15:10:58 to 15:18:52

64 to 66

13:23:54 to 15;22:47

45.85 to 50.5

NA NA NA 26/11/2008

15:23:34 49.80 49.4 15:23:33 49.85

iv. From the above table, it is found that on the days when the

Noticee’s sell orders have matched with the buy orders of MSR, the

Noticee has bought at lower prices prior to the buy orders of MSR.

Further, the Noticee’s sell order limit price was always above the

sell LTP prior to the order entry but was same or very close to the

buy limit price of MSR.

v. The net profit of Amtek Auto for the quarter ending September 30,

2008 was substantially reduced to ` 4806 lakh from ` 7497 lakh

achieved in the quarter ending June 30, 2008. The NSE price

volume data for the trading in the scrip of Amtek Auto on the days

when the Noticee’s sell trades have matched with the buy trades of

MSR was as follows:

Symbol Date Open Price

High Price

Low Price

Close Price

Total Traded Quantity

AMTEKAUTO 15-Oct-08 106.85 109.35 101.5 105.85 256613

AMTEKAUTO 16-Oct-08 97 106 87 103.05 116841

AMTEKAUTO 20-Oct-08 103 106 100.05 104.5 127873

AMTEKAUTO 23-Oct-08 82.25 90.4 81.05 83.7 431762

AMTEKAUTO 24-Oct-08 82 82.8 58.1 74.05 240516

AMTEKAUTO 31-Oct-08 73.1 75 70.5 73.5 224809

AMTEKAUTO 7-Nov-08 70 74 66.5 70.3 197893

AMTEKAUTO 10-Nov-08 70 71.95 68.5 69.6 190474

Page 11 of 32

AMTEKAUTO 12-Nov-08 63 65.8 62.25 64.45 131920

AMTEKAUTO 26-Nov-08 43.8 50.85 43.4 49.05 208699

vi. From the above table, it is found that the price of Amtek Auto was

continuously falling over this period as the scrip which opened at

`106.85 on October 15, 2008 finally closed at ` 49.05 on November

26, 2008.

vii. On comparing the price volume table with the table containing

analysis of orders placed by the Noticee and MSR, it is observed

that Noticee’s sell order limit price which was always above the sell

LTP prior to these order entry and was same or very close to the

buy limit price of MSR, was also close to the highest price reached

on NSE on those days.

Findings in respect of trading of Noticee in the scrip of Amtek India viii. It is observed from NSE trade log that, Noticee has traded in the

scrip of Amtek India on the following days during the investigation

period.





Counter Sell Broker of Major client



Religare 10,000 10,000 CF3 Sunglow 9,9991/07/2008 Narayan 10,000 10,000 CF3 Sunglow 8,459

136,104

11/11/2008 ISF 26,805 26,805 MP3252 Religare 26,418 35,00012/11/2008 ISF 10,000 10,000 MP3252 Religare 10,000 20,00025/11/2008 ISF 90,000 90,000 MP3252 Religare 89,996 174,00026/11/2008 ISF 30,000 30,000 MP3252 Religare 30,000 35,76728/11/2008 ISF 80,000 80,000 MP3252 Religare 75,343 175,000

Page 12 of 32

01/12/2008 ISF 90,000 90,000 MP3252 Religare 90,000 149,00002/12/2008 ISF 90,000 90,000 MP3252 Religare 88,032 254,00003/12/2008 ISF 90,000 90,000 MP3252 Religare 90,000 222,42004/12/2008 ISF 102,481 102,481 MP3252 Religare 90,000 511,000TOTAL 6,29,286 6,29,286 6,08,247 15,76,187

(MP 3252 : MSR Marketing Pvt. Ltd.// CF 3: SRS Portfolio Ltd. )

ix. The table given above reveals the following :

:

The Noticee has traded on 10 days in the scrip of Amtek India,

whereby the Noticee has bought a total of 6,29,286 shares and

sold the same number. Further, the Noticee has squared off the

position at the end of each day.

Out of 10 days, on 9 days the sell orders placed by the Noticee

through ISF has matched with the buy orders placed by MSR

trading through Religare, which constitutes 93.72% of Noticee’s

gross sell.

Further, MSR has bought the said scrip on 9 days and on all the

days the buy orders placed by MSR matched with the sell

orders placed by the Noticee.

x. The analysis of orders placed by the Noticee and MSR is as under:






13:44:24 to 15;17:56

38.5 to 39 NA NA NA 11/11/2008

15:22:56 38 to 40.6 39.15 15:23:09 to 15:23:36

40.65 to 40.7

13:26:48 to 14:49:10

39 NA NA NA 12/11/2008

15:07:32 40.7 39 15:11:31 to 15:19:29

40 to 41

25/11/2008 11:31:59 to 14:15:10

18.9 to 19 NA NA NA

Page 13 of 32

14:15:29 20.25 to 20.5

19 14:16:09 to 14:16:59

20.5

12:26:50 to 15:09:43

19.5 to 21 NA NA NA 26/11/2008

15:16:30 21.65 20.55 15:16:33 21.65 14:56:06 to

15:17:49 21.5 to 22.5 NA NA NA 28/11/2008

15;18:31 21.25 to 23.3

22 15:17:16 to 15:20:30

23.3 to 23.35

13:35:35 to 15:09:00

21.9 to 22.1 NA NA NA 1/12/2008

15:09:21 23.9 22 15:10:23 to 15:10:28

24

13:47:07 to 14:38:35

21 to 21.6 NA NA NA 2/12/2008

15:09:28 22.5 to 23.2 21.2 15:09:36 to 15:11:19

22.5 to 23.25

12:54:36 to 15:09:24

20.95 to 22 NA NA NA 3/12/2008

15:08:58 22.5 21.3 15:10:12 to 15:13:22

22.5 to 23.1

14:02:11 to 14;37:45

21.9 to 22.1 NA NA NA 4/12/2008

14:17:04 to 14:29:17

22.75 to 23.1

21.95 to 23.25

14:17:49 to 14:25:48

23 to 24.1

xi. From the above table it is found that on the days when the



Further, the Noticee’s sell order limit price was above the sell LTP

prior to the order entry but was close to the buy limit price of MSR.

xii. The net profit from ordinary activities after tax of Amtek India for the

quarter ending September 30, 2008 has reduced to ` 2217 lakh

from ` 2551 lakh achieved in the quarter ending June 30, 2008.

The NSE price volume data for the trading in the scrip of Amtek

India on the days when the Noticee’s sell trades have matched with

the buy trades of MSR was as follows:

Page 14 of 32


High Price

Low Price

Close Price


AMTEKINDIA 11-Nov-

08 38.35 40.8 38.1 40.35 94519

AMTEKINDIA 12-Nov-

08 42 42 38 40 40579

AMTEKINDIA 25-Nov-

08 19.25 20.7 18.6 19.65 377453

AMTEKINDIA 26-Nov-

08 20.5 21.65 19.15 21.25 107535

AMTEKINDIA 28-Nov-

08 21.7 23.3 20.55 22.45 341634

AMTEKINDIA 1-Dec-08 22.3 24 20.75 22.75 434390

AMTEKINDIA 2-Dec-08 21.45 23.2 20.55 22.05 903918

AMTEKINDIA 3-Dec-08 21 22.85 20.6 22.3 589060

AMTEKINDIA 4-Dec-08 21.6 23.5 20.6 21 1342845 xiii. From the above table, it is found that price of Amtek India was

falling over this period as the scrip which opened at ` 38.35 on

November 11, 2008 finally closed at ` 21 on December 04, 2008.

xiv. On comparing the above price volume table with the table

containing analysis of orders placed by the Noticee and MSR, it is

observed that Noticee’s sell order limit price which was above the

sell LTP prior to these order entry and was close to the buy limit

price of MSR, was also close to the highest price reached on NSE

on those days.

Page 15 of 32

Findings in respect of trading of Noticee in the scrip of Ahmednagar Forgings xv. It is observed from NSE trade log that, Noticee has traded in the

scrip of Ahmednagar Forgings on the following days during the

investigation period.








04/07/2008 Narayan 12,000 12,000 CF3 Sunglow 11,998 54,16909/07/2008 Narayan 4,764 4,764 CF3 Sunglow 4,764 15,00011/07/2008 Narayan 10,000 10,000 CF3 Sunglow 9,797 45,29916/07/2008 Narayan 7,438 7,438 CF3 Sunglow 7,438 54,60617/07/2008 Narayan 647 647 CF3 Sunglow 647 6,33918/07/2008 Narayan 3,438 3,438 CF3 Sunglow 3,438 5,05421/07/2008 Narayan 6,921 6,921 CF3 Sunglow 6,921 10,00022/07/2008 Narayan 4,669 4,669 21/10/2008 Religare 90,000 90,000 MP3252 Religare 90,000 124,61724/10/2008 Religare 45,986 45,986 MP3252 Religare 45,166 73,00003/11/2008 Religare 121,016 121,016 MP3252 Religare 121,016 206,10104/11/2008 Religare 90,000 90,000 MP3252 Religare 76,407 240,00011/11/2008 ISF 21,000 21,000 MP3252 Religare 21,000 35,00012/11/2008 ISF 9,347 9,347 MP3252 Religare 9,347 20,00017/11/2008 ISF 75,000 75,000 MP3252 Religare 74,999 139,93903/12/2008 ISF 38,038 38,038 MP3252 Religare 37,236 50,000TOTAL 5,40,264 5,40,264 4,75,171 8,88,657

(MP 3252 : MSR Marketing Pvt. Ltd.// CF 3: SRS Portfolio Ltd. ) xvi. The table given above reveals the following :

During the investigation period the Noticee had traded for 16

days in the scrip Ahmednagar Forgings, whereby the Noticee

had bought a total of 5,40,264 shares and sold the same

Page 16 of 32

number. Further, the Noticee has squared off the position at the

end of each day.

The Noticee’s trades were concentrated on few days in July

2008 when on 7 days sell orders of the Noticee through broker

Narayan have substantially matched with the buy orders of the

client SRS trading through broker Sunglow. Again on 8 days in

October/November/December 2008 sell orders of the Noticee

through Religare/ISF have matched with the buy orders of the

client MSR trading through broker Religare.

Out of 16 days, on 15 days the sell order placed by the Noticee

matched with either SRS or MSR, which constitutes 96.28% of

gross sell of the Noticee.

xvii. The analysis of orders placed by the Noticee, SRS and MSR are as

under:

• Orders placed by Pooja Menghani and SRS are as under:

Date Pooja

Menghani’s Buying/ (Selling) Period (Order Log)



CF3 (SRS) Buy order period

CF3 (SRS) Buy Limit Price

14:02;24 to 14:16:56

73.5 to 81.45

NA NA NA 04/07/2008

14:17:12 88 81.4 14;22:09 to 14:58:01

79 to 89.95

13:54:59 to 15:05:55

88.45 to 90.5

NA NA NA 09/07/2008

14:19:35 to 15:13:32

95 to 98 89.5 to 99 15:12:58 to 15;13:32

98 to 100

13:06:33 to 14:04:11

102 to 103 NA NA NA 11/07/2008

14:56:38 107 to 108 98.15 15:04;31 99 16/07/2008

13;13:09 to 14:53:55

91.75 to 97.5

NA NA NA

Page 17 of 32

14:49:06 104 96.5 15;05:39 to 15:27:26

102 to 107

13:03:47 to 14:30:56

99.6 to 103 NA NA NA 17/07/2008

15:00:01 105 105.6 14:52;43 to 15:10:50

103 to 105

14:56:38 to 14:58:26

100 NA NA NA 18/07/2008

15:07:19 103 100 12:55:45 to 15:10:24

101.8 to 103

14;47:46 to 15:19:19

103-105 NA NA NA 21/07/2008

15:20:06 110 105 15:22:39 to 15:23;58

107 to 111

From the above table, it is found that on the days when the Noticee’s

sell orders have matched with the buy orders of SRS, the Noticee has

bought at lower prices prior to the buy orders of SRS. Further, the

Noticee’s sell order limit price was above the sell LTP prior to the order

entry but was same or very close to the buy limit price of SRS.

• Orders placed by the Noticee and MSR are as under:






12:28:20 to 13:14:35

45 NA NA NA 21/10/2008

13:38:59 to 13:39:47

53.5 to 54.5 48 to 48.9 13:15:27 to 13:43:29

45 to 55

11:13:31 to 15:17:05

33 to 39.25 NA NA NA 24/10/2008

11:51:06 to 15:23:07

35 to 39 32.5 to 38.35

11:53:54 to 15:23:34

33 to39

11:44:10 to 15:15:16

32 to 37.5 NA NA NA 3/11/2008

13:07:12 to 15:18:19

36.45 to 36.95

32.9 to 34.4

11:48:00 to 15:18:37

32 to 37

4/11/2008 12:03:31 to 32.5 NA NA NA

Page 18 of 32

12:06:29 13;50:53 to

13:51:30 35 to 37.4 33.5 13:42:00 to

13:59:10 32.5 to 38

13:24:44 to 14:08:57

31.5 to 32.1 NA NA NA 11/11/2008

14:54:01 33 31.2 14:59:31 to 14:59:56

33 to 33.05

13:26:57 to 14:49:45

29.85 to 30.5

NA NA NA 12/11/2008

15:05:36 31.8 30 15:10:22 to 15;19:16

31 to 32

12:28:58 to 13:45:22

25.55 to 26.25

NA NA NA 17/11/2008

14:00:40 27.5 25.55 13:21:46 to 14;01:15

25.55 to 27.55

13:35:55 to 14:42:46

21.95 to 22 NA NA NA 3/12/2008

15:14:54 22 to 23 22 15:15:15 23

From the above table, it is found that on the days when the



Further, the Noticee’s sell order limit price was above the sell LTP

prior to the order entry but was close to the buy limit price of MSR.

xviii. The net profit of Ahmednagar Forgings for the quarter ending June

30, 2008 has reduced to ` 1293 lakh from ` 1572 lakh achieved in

the quarter ending March 31, 2008. The NSE price volume data for

the trading in the scrip of Ahmednagar Forging on the days when

sell trades of the Noticee has matched with the buy trades of SRS

was as follows:


High Price

Low Price Close Price


AHMEDFORGE 4-Jul-08 75 89.95 70.55 89.95 86165

AHMEDFORGE 9-Jul-08 96 102.85 83.2 96.45 646669

AHMEDFORGE 11-Jul-08 100 108 97 104.75 69945

AHMEDFORGE 16-Jul-08 92.55 107 88.05 104.6 76161

Page 19 of 32

AHMEDFORGE 17-Jul-08 107 107 97.3 104.3 17110

AHMEDFORGE 18-Jul-08 106.8 106.9 99.05 102.9 22658

AHMEDFORGE 21-Jul-08 103.95 114.9 98.65 108.05 19297

xix. From the above table, it is found that price of Ahmednagar Forging was

rising over this period as the scrip which opened at ` 75 on July 04, 2008

finally closed at `108.05 on July 21, 2008. However, the traded volume

has substantially reduced during the said period.

xx. The net profit of Ahmednagar Forgings for the quarter ending September

30, 2008 has reduced to ` 1122 lakh from ` 1293 lakh achieved in the

quarter ending June 30, 2008.The NSE price volume data for the trading

in the scrip of Ahmednagar Forgings on the days when sell trades of the

Noticee has matched with the buy trades of MSR was as follows:


High Price

Low Price

Close Price


AHMEDFORGE 21-Oct-08 50.05 54.5 45 47.85 291085

AHMEDFORGE 24-Oct-08 40 40 31.45 33.8 152777

AHMEDFORGE 3-Nov-08 37 37.3 32 35.35 529082

AHMEDFORGE 4-Nov-08 35 37.4 32.25 34 534195

AHMEDFORGE 11-Nov-08 32.2 33 30.7 31.3 89370

AHMEDFORGE 12-Nov-08 31.9 31.9 29.2 30.9 59411

AHMEDFORGE 17-Nov-08 28.5 28.5 25.55 25.55 321104

AHMEDFORGE 3-Dec-08 22.5 23 21.25 22.85 165389

xxi. From the above table it is found that price of the scrip of

Ahmednagar Forgings was falling over this period as the scrip

which opened at ` 50.05 on October 21, 2008 finally closed at `

22.85 on December 03, 2008.

Page 20 of 32

xxii. On comparing the above price volume table with the table

containing analysis of orders placed by the Noticee and MSR, it is

observed that sell order limit price of the Noticee which was always

above the sell LTP prior to these order entry and was same or very

close to the buy limit price of MSR, was also close to the highest

price reached on NSE on those days.

Findings in respect of trading of Noticee in the scrip of Monnet Ispat

xxiii. It is observed from NSE trade log that, Noticee has traded in the

scrip of Monnet Ispat on the following days during the investigation

period.








Religare 10000 10000 ML526 Religare 500027/06/2008 India Infoline

2500 2500 ML526 Religare 150070000

Religare 5000 5000 LP187 Religare 5000India Infoline

2000 2000 LP187 Religare 200030/06/2008

Narayan 10000 10000 LP187 Religare 10000

184501

Religare 5000 5000 LP187 Religare 5000India Infoline

2500 2500 LP187 Religare 250001/07/2008

Narayan 10000 10000 LP187 Religare 5465

27166

02/07/2008 Narayan 8000 8000 LP187 Religare 8000 3385803/07/2008 Narayan 10000 10000 LP187 Religare 6667 2900004/07/2008 Narayan 2700 2700 LP187 Religare 1413 1000007/07/2008 Narayan 10000 10000 LP187 Religare 9597 1586409/07/2008 Narayan 10000 10000 LP187 Religare 9761 50285TOTAL 87,700 87,700 71,903 1,39,007

LP 187 Live Star

Page 21 of 32

xxiv. The table given above reveals the following :

The Noticee had traded in the scrip of Monnet Ispat, for 8 days

from June 27, 2008 to July 09, 2008 where the Noticee was

buying and selling equal quantities on each day. The Noticee

has bought a total of 87,700 shares and sold the same number

of shares.

On 7 days, sell orders of the Noticee through brokers

Religare/India Infoline/Narayan have substantially matched with

the buy orders of Live Star trading through Religare, which

constitutes74.57% of gross trading of the Noticee.

xxv. The analysis of the order placed by the Noticee and Live Star is as

under:

Date Pooja Menghani’s

Buying/ (Selling) Period (Order Log)



LP187 (Live Star) Buy order period

LP187 (Live Star) Buy Limit Price

(R) 10:48:46 520 (N) 10:52:01 to

11:36:37 519 to 520

(I) 10:51:51 520

NA NA NA

(R) 11:34:24 519.95 to 530

519

(N) 11:37:00 520 to 530 520

30/06/2008

(I) 11:31:22 520 to 530 519.7

09:55:25 to 15:22:36

515 to 531

(R) 11:12:38 to 12:47:27

510 to 512

(N) 11:08:30 to 12:51:12

510 to 513

(I) 11:58;06 510

NA NA NA 01/07/2008

(R) 13:34:16 515 510 10:04:54 to 495 to 525

Page 22 of 32

(N) 13:39:33 to 14:02:29

508 to 512 512 to 515.95

(I) 13:29:21 510 to 514 510

15:17:18

12:25:21 to 14:10:17

485 to 490 NA NA NA 02/07/2008

14:10:58 497 490 11:15:16 to 15:29:05

465 to 510

11:13:22 to 11:23:41

485 NA NA NA 03/07/2008

15:20:49 to 15:24:43

490 490 to 496 13:29:39 to 15:25:41

467 to 500

11:44:52 to 14:39:50

487 to 494 NA NA NA 04/07/2008

14;38;45 499 495 14:48:04 to 15:29:47

496 to 510

14:03:55 to 15:22:14

505 to 509.5

NA NA NA 07/07/2008

15:24:04 to 15:51:37

510 509 10:35:07 to 15:50:16

509.05 to 520

13:53:07 to 14:25:08

501 to 502.5

NA NA NA 09/07/2008

14:26:45 to 15:27:18

503.1 to 507

502 to 505.95

14:56;32 to 15:29:50

497 to 510

xxvi. From the above table it is found that on the days when the

Noticee’s sell orders have matched with the buy orders of Live Star,

the Noticee has bought at lower prices prior to the buy orders of

Live Star. Further, the Noticee’s sell order limit price was above the

sell LTP prior to the order entry but was close to the buy limit price

of Live Star.

xxvii. The net profit of Monnet Ispat for the quarter ending June 30, 2008

has increased to ` 7032 lakh from ` 5720 lakh achieved in the

quarter ending March 31, 2008. The NSE price volume data for the

trading in the scrip of Monnet Ispat on the days when sell trades of

the Noticee have matched with the buy trades of Live Star was as

follows:

Page 23 of 32

Symbol Date Open

Price High

Price Low

Price Close

Price


MONNETISPA 30-Jun-08 524.95 530 503 517.45 268000

MONNETISPA 1-Jul-08 511.15 525 476.25 498.55 140372

MONNETISPA 2-Jul-08 504.65 509.75 462 497.4 83337

MONNETISPA 3-Jul-08 485 502 463 493.8 77118

MONNETISPA 4-Jul-08 492 505 483 501 36054

MONNETISPA 7-Jul-08 515 529 501 509.05 54187

MONNETISPA 9-Jul-08 548.9 558.9 495.1 504.5 100203

xxviii. From the above table it is found that price of Monnet Ispat was

falling over this period as the scrip which opened at ` 524.95 on

June 30, 2008 has closed at ` 504.5 on July 09, 2008.

xxix. I have noted the following submissions made by the Noticee during

the course of investigation:

The Noticee has done major trading in the scrips of Amtek Auto,

Amtek India, Ahmednagar Forgings and Monnet Ispat during 2008-

09. Subsequently, the Noticee has not traded in above scrips.

With regard to the reasons for the aforesaid trades the Noticee has

submitted that the trades were jobbing in nature.

The Noticee was not a regular investor or speculator in the share

market. The Noticee used to do technical analysis of scrips where

the Noticee was interested and based on media reports on CNBC,

NDTV etc. decided on quantity of shares to be bought and sold and

the period for which the shares were to be held.

The Noticee used to place orders over phone through her mobile

(mobile-9811266244) and landline numbers of her earlier

organization (Centurion Bank of Punjab). The Noticee used to call

Shri Asish Kumar (Branch Head), Shri Dawar (Marketing) for

Page 24 of 32

Indiainfoline, Shri Anand, Shri Deepak Khurana (Branch Head) etc

in Religare, Shri Ravi, Shri Leela in Narayan Securities and Shri

Rakesh/ Suresh in ISF.

The Noticee has admitted that she has received calls from Deepak

Khurana, Branch Head of Religare, Pritampura Branch, New Delhi,

before her buy orders in the aforesaid four scrips. The Noticee also

admitted that she has received calls from Deepak Khurana before

her sell orders in the aforesaid four scrips wherein Deepak Khurana

used to inform her about the current price and market behavior.

Also she used to place the sell order. In her tradings through

Religare, she has placed orders through Deepak Khurana.

xxx. The statement of Deepak Khurana was recorded by SEBI during

the course of investigation. In his statement Deepak Khurana has

admitted that SRS, Live Star and MSR are registered with Religare

as clients and Deepak Khurana has placed orders in the exchange

system for them. Further, Deepak Khurana has admitted in his

statement that he has placed the orders in the exchange system for

the Noticee.

xxxi. The broker Religare vide letters dated February 20, 2009, October

28, 2009 and June 24, 2010 and the examination report conducted

by Religare has submitted the following:

The Noticee was registered as a client on June 04, 2007 and

was introduced by Deepak Khurana. As per KYC her income

was in the range of Rs.5 to 10 lakh per annum.

The Noticee and Live Star were its clients.

Deepak Khurana and Anand Sagar were the common dealers

for Live Star, SRS and MSR who had received and placed

orders on their behalf.

Page 25 of 32

13. The arguments put forward by the Noticee in the letter dated April 05,

2012 and my findings thereon are as under:

I. “……It has nowhere been proved that there was a mischievous

connivance between Deepak Khurana and the Noticee. The fact is that

the Noticee was a random and innocent investor and was relying on her

own competence, instincts or intuition before entering the deals. The

investments made are by selecting randomly from the scrip by gathering

market information and have nothing to do with any manipulations……”

II. I find that Deepak Khurana has introduced the Noticee to

Religare. The Noticee has herself admitted in her statement

before SEBI that she has received the calls from Deepak Khurana

before both buy and sell orders. The price of Amtek Auto, Amtek

India, Ahmednagar Forging and Monnat Ispat has fallen during

the investigation period. Moreover, the net profit of Amtek Auto,

Amtek India, Ahmednagar Forging has fallen during the

investigation period. Therefore, contention of the Noticee that

investments were made in the said scrips by gathering the market

information does not get justified. Therefore, in a period when

price of the above mentioned scrips were falling substantially on a

daily basis, modus operandi of first large scale buying during the

day and subsequently placing sell orders at a limit price above

LTP but close to the highest price of the day which was also close

to the buy limit price of MSR/Live Star/SRS, reveals that the

Noticee had a prior knowledge of impending large scale buy

orders of MSR/Live Star/SRS at a higher price. Thus, in view of

the same, the contention of the Noticee does not hold any merit.

III. “……As regards the matching of buy order with that of another

brokers’s sale order could be matter of chance, coincidence or matching

Page 26 of 32

sale/purchase order by the buyer or seller as obvious from the net. You

must appreciate that Religare was the buyer’s as well as sellers’s broker

in Ahmednagar Forging and Amtek Auto which goes to prove that

Religare would side/pitch one investor against the other investor……”

IV. I find that the Noticee has traded on 49 days with MSR, SRS and

Live Star in the aforesaid four scrips on NSE. It cannot be a

coincidence that on so many occasions trading has been done in

the same scrips by the aforesaid entities which are purportedly

not even connected. The only logical inference is that there was a

pre-existing knowledge about MSR, SRS and Live Star’s trades

with the Noticee. The matched trades between MSR, SRS and

Live Star and the Noticee signify that the Noticee was well aware

of orders to be/ being placed by MSR, SRS and Live Star.

Further, from the data it is observed that though a number of

brokers were involved on both the sides of trades for the Noticee

and major buyers i.e. MSR, SRS & Live Star, still Religare was

the broker substantially carrying out the orders for both the major

buyers and the Noticee. I find that the Noticee has squared off the

position on the same day. Merely squaring up large volumes

cannot lead to any allegation or suspicion, however, the number

of “coincidences” involved in trading of the Noticee and MSR,

SRS and Live Star make it difficult to believe that all the trading

was done by the Noticee on her own. Apart from squaring up the

trades, such pattern of order placement and execution leads to

the inference that the trading was done on the basis of

information provided by Deepak Khurana with regard to the buy

orders received from MSR, SRS and Live Star and can

appropriately be called ‘Front Running’. Front running has been

defined in Farlex Financial Dictionary as “The act of entering a

trade, either with a long or short position, knowing that other investors

Page 27 of 32

are about to take a position that will positively influence one's own.” * In

the present case, the Noticee was well aware of the forthcoming

orders of MSR, SRS and Live Star and she accordingly took a

long or short position so that she could benefit from the price

movement caused due to the orders of MSR, SRS and Live Star.

Thus, this is a classic case of front running. The Noticee and

Deepak Khurana were an essential part of this collusive trading

as she used the sensitive information about MSR, SRS and Live

Star’s forthcoming trades and hence is responsible for the front

running. Thus, the contention made by the Noticee does not hold

any merit.

14. In conclusion, the findings can be summarized as under:

a) During the investigation period, the Noticee traded on 49 days in

above four scrips. Further, majority of trades of the Noticee were on

the days when large buy trades of Live Star and MSR were

undertaken through the broker Religare and of SRS through the

broker Sunglow.

b) Though a number of brokers were involved on both the sides of

trades for the Noticee and major buyers i.e. MSR, SRS & Live Star,

still Religare was the broker substantially carrying out the orders for

both the major buyers and the Noticee. Details of the same are

given below:

Scrip

No. of Days Pooja Menghani Traded

Presence of Religare Remark

Amtek Auto 15 10On 6 days Religare was present on both the sides of the trade

Amtek India 10 9 Pooja Menghani has traded through ISF and MSR has

Page 28 of 32

traded through Religare Ahmednagar Forging 16 8

On 4 days Religare was present on both the sides of the trade

Monnet Ispat 8 7

Pooja Menghani has traded through Narayan/India Infoline/Religare and Live Star has traded through Religare

Total 49 34

c) Further, Deepak Khurana was the common dealer taking

instructions and putting orders in the system for both the sides.

d) Deepak Khurana has also introduced the Noticee to Religare.

e) The Noticee has received calls from Deepak Khurana before both

buy orders and sell orders of MSR, SRS & Live Star. While her

investment during the year 2008-09 in the market was not more

than ` 5 Lakh, still she was allowed to take large positions in the

scrips through Religare.

f) Deepak Khurana has aided and abetted the Noticee by

communicating the information with regard to the large buy orders

received from Live Star, MSR and SRS to the Noticee, and the

Noticee taking advantage of the said information, had placed buy

orders at lower prices and subsequently sold them at higher price

and thereby made gains in the scrip of Amtek Auto (purchased

369954 shares and sold 369914 shares ), Amtek India (purchased

6,29,286 shares and sold 6,29,286 shares), Monnet Ispat

(purchased 87,700 shares and sold 87,700 shares) and

Ahmednagar Forging (purchased 5,40,264 shares and sold

5,40,264 shares).

Thus, the Noticee has done front running in the scrips of Amtek

Auto, Amtek India, Monnet Spat and Ahmednagar Forging and

benefited from trading ahead of buy trades of Live Star, SRS and

MSR.

15. In order to establish the fraudulent nature of trades indulged in by the

Noticee, reference may also be made to the definition of fraud laid

Page 29 of 32

down in regulation 2 (1) (c) of the PFUTP Regulations, which reads

as follows:

"2 (1)(c) "fraud" includes any act, expression, omission or concealment committed whether in a deceitful manner or not by a person or by any other person with his connivance or by his agent to deal in securities, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or avoidance of any loss, … …”

16. Regulation 3(a) of PFUTP Regulations prohibits a person directly or

indirectly to buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in a fraudulent

manner. Regulation 3(b) of PFUTP Regulations prohibits a person

directly or indirectly to 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 thereunder. Regulation 3(c) of PFUTP

Regulations prohibits a person directly or indirectly to 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; Regulation 3(d) of PFUTP Regulations

prohibits a person directly or indirectly to 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 thereunder. Regulation 4(1) of

PFUTP Regulations prohibits a person from indulging in a fraudulent

or an unfair trade practice in securities.

Page 30 of 32

17. In view of the foregoing, the allegation of violation of regulations 3(a),

(b), (c), (d) and 4(1) of PFUTP Regulations by the Noticee stands

established.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of SEBI Vs. Shri

Ram Mutual Fund [2006] 68 SCL 216(SC) held that “In our considered

opinion, penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory

obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is established

and hence the intention of the parties committing such violation becomes

wholly irrelevant…”.

19. Thus, the aforesaid violations by the Noticee make her liable for

penalty under 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 which read as follows:

15HA.Penalty for fraudulent and unfair trade practices.- If any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities, he shall be liable to a penalty of twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, whichever is higher.

20. While determining the quantum of penalty under section 15HA, it is

important to consider the factors stipulated in section 15J of the SEBI

Act, which reads as under:-

“15J - Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer While adjudging quantum of penalty under section 15-I, the adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:- (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage,

wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of

investors as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of the default.”

Page 31 of 32

21. The details of shares purchased, sold and profit earned by the

Noticee during the investigation period in the scrips of Amtek Auto,

Amtek India, Ahmednagar Forging and Monnat Ispat are as under:

Name of Scrips

Buy quantity (Shares)

Buy value

(`)

Sale quantity (Shares)

Sale value

(`)

Profit

(`)

Amtek Auto 369914 30123257 369914 31326527 12,03,270

Amtek India 629286 15446078 629286 16424409 9,78,330

Ahmednagar Forging

540264 20928246 540264 23204339 22,76,093

Monnet Ispat 87700 44440031 87700 44888170 4,48,139

Total 16,27,164 11,09,37,611

16,27,164 11,58,43,444

49,05,832

22. The Noticee colluded with Deepak Khurana to obtain sensitive

information regarding forthcoming orders from MSR, SRS and Live

Star and did front running on that basis thereby making huge illegal

profits. This has acted as a fraud against the market and has mislead

and deceived the investors. This activity of the Noticee has seriously

undermined the market integrity. Considering the fact that the annual

income of the Noticee as per KYC ranged from of ` 5 to ` 10 lakh, I

note that the Noticee took huge position in the scrips of Amtek Auto,

Amtek India, Ahmednagar Forging and Monnat Ispat. It is clear that

the Noticee had received prior information in violation of PFUTP

Regulations and was conducting manipulative and deceptive trading

tantamounting to front running. As can be seen from table above, the

total profit made by the Noticee from front running done during the

investigation period works out to approximately ` 49 lakh. Front

running is the instrument/tool employed by some unscrupulous

elements in the securities market to manipulate the market and

deceive the general/genuine investors in the market place. The

pattern of trading, behaviour of the entities, apparent irregularities

and the available trading data, etc., prove manipulation which always

Page 32 of 32

depends on inferences drawn on a mass of factual detail. When all of

these are considered together, they can emerge as ingredients to

prove the manipulative scheme designed and executed by such

manipulators with intent to tamper with free market forces. The

manner and frequency with which such manipulative trading has

been done shows the repetitive nature of violation of law by the

Noticee. People who indulge in manipulative, fraudulent and

deceptive transactions, or abet the carrying out of such transactions

which are fraudulent and deceptive, should be suitably penalized for

the said acts of omissions and commissions.

ORDER

23. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the

case, I impose a penalty of `1,00,00,000 /- (Rupees one crore only)

under section 15HA of the SEBI Act on the Noticee which will be

commensurate with the violations committed by her.

24. The Noticee shall pay the said amount of penalty by way of demand

draft in favour of “SEBI - Penalties Remittable to Government of

India”, payable at Mumbai, within 45 days of receipt of this order. The

said demand draft should be forwarded to Mr. S.V Krishnamohan,

Regional Manager, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Eastern

Regional Office (ERO), L&T Chambers, 3rd Floor, 16, Camac Street,

Kolkata- 700 017.

25. In terms of rule 6 of the Rules, copies of this order are sent to the

Noticee and also to the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Date: April 30, 2012 PARAG BASU

Place: Mumbai ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Documents

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER SECURITIES AND … · Page 3 of 32 (hereinafter referred to as “Live Star”), SRS Portfolio Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SRS”) and MSR