The Security Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai rejected the appeal made by the petitioner, who was involved in the case of fraudulent trading in Mindvision Capital Share. The appeal was made on the grounds of delay as the proceedings were launched by the respondent, Security, and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) after a period of seven years.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had conducted an investigation into trading activities of the company, Mindvision Capital between June 2009 and February 2010. The probe found that the appellant, Pooja Vinay Jain was involved in fraudulent trading in shares of Mindvision Capital.
The appellant appealed in the Security Appellate Tribunal as aggrieved by the imposition of a monetary penalty of Rs. 3 lacs by the Adjudicating Officer of respondent Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for violation of a provision of Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (g) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations).
The appellant contended that since the proceedings were launched by respondent SEBI after a period of seven years, the same should be quashed on the ground of delay.
On the other hand the respondent replied that since large numbers of entities were involved in the off-market as well as market transactions, the analysis of the same took some time due to which no prejudice was caused to the appellant.
The two-judge bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala and Justice M. T. Joshi while adhering to the arguments of the respondent, SEBI upheld the penalty imposed by SEBI and rejected the appeal made by the petitioner, who was involved in the case of fraudulent trading in Mindvision Capital Share. The appeal was made on the grounds of delay as the proceedings were launched by the respondent, Securities, and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) after a period of seven years.
“The appellant neither put a plea of prejudice before the AO nor before us,” the bench noted.
“The record would show that all the documents concerning the defense of the appellant were filed by her before the AO. Therefore, for want of any prejudice the proceedings cannot be quashed simply on the ground of delay in launching the same,” the bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
