BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

        Appeal No.199 of 2010 
                        Date of Decision :18.1.2011 

1. Naresh Rajawat (HUF)
2. Reeta Rajawat
3. Pawanben V. Jain
4. Hasmukh V. Jain
   All residing at 1206-A, Depak Jyoti Tower,
   Kalachowki, Parel, Tank Road,
   Mumbai. ….. Appellants Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India
   SEBI Bhavan, ‘G’ Block,
   Plot No.C-4A, Bandra Kurla,
   Bandra (East), Mumbai. …...Respondent Mr. Dakshesh Vyas, Advocate with Mr. Durgaprasad Sabnis, Advocate for the
   Appellants.
   Dr. Poornima Advani, Advocate with Mr. Omprakash Jha, Advocate and Ms. Amrita
   Joshi, Advocates for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
Samar Ray, Member
P.K. Malhotra, Member
Per : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)

This order will dispose of two Appeals no. 199 and 200 of 2010 both of which are
directed against the order dated October 6, 2010 passed by the whole time member of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) confirming the ad-interim
ex-parte order of February 20, 2010 by which the appellants alongwith some others had
been prohibited from buying, selling or dealin g in securities in any manner with effect
from the date of the order.

2. On receipt of alerts of synchronized a nd matched trading in some illiquid scrips,
   the Board conducted a preliminary enquiry an d prima facie found that certain entities
   including the appellants were executing matche d/circular trades in those scrips resulting
   in an abnormal rise in the price of those scrips and also in volumes. Investigations by the 2
   Board are still continuing. Pending investigations, the appellants and some others were
   restrained from accessing the securities market till further orders. As already observed,
   the ad-interim ex-parte order has now been confirmed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel fo r the parties. The grievance of the
   appellants is that they are not involved in any synchronized/circular trading and that the
   Board was not justified in keeping them out of the market pending investigations. The
   learned counsel for the Board has placed befo re us some trade and order logs which
   prima facie go to show that the appellants and others had executed some trades in a
   circular manner. Since the investigations ar e still pending, we woul d not like to express
   any opinion in regard to the trading patte rn of the appellants and others. In the
   circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.
   In the result, the appeals fail and they stand dismissed. We, however, make it
   clear that nothing stated hereinabove should be taken as an expression of our view on any
   of the issues raised in the appeal and we have no doubt that on the conclusion of the
   investigations, the Board shall consider the matter on the basis of the material collected
   and proceed in accordance with law. The Board is directed to complete the investigations
   expeditiously but not later than May 31, 2011. No costs.
   Sd/-
   Justice N.K.Sodhi
   Presiding Officer
   Sd/-
   Samar Ray
   Member
   Sd/-
   P.K. Malhotra
   Member
   18.1.2011
   Prepared and compared by
   RHN 3

Download Order Copy