SEBI settles charges against Sanghvi in front-running case

As per the settlement with SEBI, Sanjay Sanghvi paid Rs15 lakh and took a voluntary debarment from the market for 36 months, without admission or denial of guilt in the alleged front running in shares traded by HDFC Mutual Fund

New Delhi: Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has disposed of a case against Sanjay Sanghvi, after he agreed to pay Rs15 lakh and take a 3-year voluntary debarment from the market to settle charges of fraudulent and unfair trade practices in the alleged front running in shares traded by HDFC Mutual Fund, reports PTI.
SEBI said that the settlement, which has been reached "without admission or denial of guilt", would apply to the charges levelled against Sanghvi in this matter alone.
SEBI had conducted an investigation into the alleged 'front running' activities that had taken place in a number of shares traded by HDFC Asset Management Company (AMC).
Front-running is an illegal market practice, wherein shares are traded based on prior information about the trading calls to be taken by institutional and other large investors.
On the basis of its preliminary findings, SEBI in June 2010 had prohibited some persons and entities from buying, selling or dealing in securities till further orders.
After completion of its probe, SEBI in February 2011 issued a show cause notice to Sanghvi, as he had allegedly violated the regulations about Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices in Securities Market.
While the proceedings were in progress, Sanghvi proposed a settlement in July 2011 under SEBI's consent order mechanism and thereafter revised the offer of settlement in September that year.
As per the revised terms of settlement, Sanghvi proposed to pay Rs15 lakh and undergo a voluntary debarment for a period of 36 months from buying, selling or dealing in the securities, directly or indirectly.
After deliberating over the consent proposal, SEBI's High Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) recommended that the proceedings against Sanghvi may be settled on those terms.
These recommendations were accepted by SEBI and it communicated the same to Sanghvi in February this year.
Subsequently, SEBI passed the consent order, after Sanghvi paid Rs15 lakh and took a voluntary debarment from the market for a period of 36 months.
The regulator said that the consent order is without prejudice to its right "to initiate enforcement actions, including commencing or reopening of the proceedings pending against the applicant," if any representation made by him is subsequently discovered to be untrue, or the applicant breaches any of the consent terms or undertakings.
Separately, SEBI disposed of a case against Dhiraj Ghai, after he agreed to pay Rs1 lakh and take one-year voluntary debarment from securities market to settle alleged charges of fraudulent practices in trading of Alka Securities' shares.
"For the sole purpose of settling the matter on hand and without admission or denial of guilt on the part of the applicant (Ghai), the applicant has remitted a sum of Rs1 lakh," SEBI said in a consent order dated 3rd September.
Further, Ghai would voluntarily take debarment from dealing in securities market for one year from the date of this order, it added.
SEBI had observed a spurt in price and volume in the shares of Alka Securities during November 2008 and March 2009.
A probe had revealed that on many occasions, promoters of the company were involved in the off market transfers and these shares were subsequently traded at BSE.
The allegation was that Ghai had received 1,10,000 shares and sold these shares to the second-level entities and additional entities in off market during the investigation period.


Indian courts can't judge arbitral proceedings held overseas: SC

Overturning earlier verdicts by the apex court, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia held that international commercial arbitration proceedings, conducted outside the country, cannot be heard and decided by the courts in India

New Delhi: In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court has held that arbitral proceedings conducted offshore would not be open to judicial scrutiny of Indian courts which can only deal with enforcement of foreign awards, reports PTI.
The judgement, with prospective effect, is expected to come to the aid of companies which obtain arbitral awards in their favour abroad but face hurdles as these come under the judicial scrutiny in Indian courts.
Overturning earlier verdicts by the apex court, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice SH Kapadia held that international commercial arbitration proceedings, conducted outside the country, cannot be heard and decided by the courts here.
The verdict comes as big blow to petitioners including public sector unit (PSU) Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Bharati Shipyard Ltd, who, in a batch of eight petitions, made a strong pitch for legal sanction to bringing arbitration proceedings abroad under the judicial scrutiny of Indian courts.
The apex court outlined the scope and powers that can be exercised by a court here under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to deal with arbitral proceedings held outside India.
"We are of the considered opinion that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (which deals with the arbitration held in India) would have no application to International Commercial Arbitration held outside India.
"Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II (which deals with enforcement of foreign awards) of the Act," the bench, in its 190-page verdict, said.
The Constitution bench had heard the issue at length after a three-judge bench had referred the batch of petitions to it.
The court scrapped its earlier decisions which had held that the Part I of the Act would be applicable to "all arbitrations held out of India, unless the parties by agreement, express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions." 
"Here again, with utmost respect and humility, we are unable to agree with the aforesaid conclusions ..," the bench, also comprising Justices Surinder Singh Nijjar, DK Jain, Ranjana Prakash Desai and Jagdish Singh Khehar, said in the judgement.
Justice Nijjar, writing the judgement, said, " order to do complete justice, we hereby order, that the law now declared by this Court shall apply prospectively, to all the arbitration agreements executed hereafter." 
"We are of the considered opinion that the Arbitration Act, 1996 has accepted the territoriality principle which has been adopted in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law," the court said.
It did not concur with the findings arrived at in earlier verdicts in Bhatia International and Venture Global Engineering cases that Part I of the Act, dealing with arbitral proceedings and awards in India, can be extended to such proceedings held outside unless parties, in agreement, bars the applicability of the Act on them.
Drawing a distinction between two portions of the Act, it said the legislation makes it clear that there can be no overlapping or intermingling of the provisions.
The bench also said that Indian courts should not entertain any plea seeking an "interim relief" against an arbitral proceedings being held outside.
"In a foreign seated international commercial arbitration, no application for interim relief would be maintainable under Section 9 or any other provision, as applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act is limited to all arbitrations which take place in India.
"Similarly, no suit for interim injunction simplicitor would be maintainable in India, on the basis of an international commercial arbitration with a seat outside India. We conclude that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is applicable only to all the arbitrations which take place within the territory of India," it said.
Out of the eight petitions, one was filed by Bharat Aluminum Company against Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services Inc against the judgement of Chattisgarh High Court which had refused to set aside an arbitral award delivered in London.
Earlier, a SC bench, in 2008, differed on applicability of the Act on arbitral proceedings held outside the country and had referred it to a three-judge bench, which, in turn, sent it to the CJI for a decision by a the Constitution bench.
The court said it agreed with the submissions that Parliament by limiting the applicability of Part I to arbitrations which take place in India has expressed a legislative declaration.
"It has clearly given recognition to the territorial principle. Necessarily therefore, it has enacted that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 applies to arbitrations having their place/seat in India," the five-judge bench concluded.
"It is necessary to remember that we are dealing with the Act which seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.


Ration card holders in Maharashtra to get kerosene subsidy directly

Under the new scheme, ration card holders would get kerosene at market rates from PDS shops, while the government would deposit the subsidy amount directly into their bank accounts

Mumbai: To check the black marketing of cheap kerosene sold through the public distribution system (PDS), the Maharashtra government has decided to deposit subsidy on the fuel directly in the bank accounts of intended beneficiaries, reports PTI.
Maharashtra Food and Civil Supplies Minister Anil Deshmukh said that other measures to stop black marketing had been ineffective. "We feel directly depositing the subsidy amount in bank account will prove effective," he said.
Under the new scheme, ration card holders would get kerosene at market rates from PDS shops.
"The PDS office will be informed about the purchase by the dealer. After the verification, reimbursement of the subsidy amount will be done directly in the bank account of the beneficiary (ration card-holder)," Deshmukh said.
The scheme was first to be implemented, on a pilot basis, in Nashik district, but following a presentation to the Union Food and Civil Supplies Ministry, it was decided to implement it all over the country, he said.
In the first phase, Mumbai-Thane, Amravati, Nashik, Wardha, Pune, and Nandurbar districts of the state will be covered.
The district collectors would see to it that joint accounts of the beneficiaries (husband and wife) are opened in nationalized banks.
"If the female head of family already has an account in a nationalized bank, she need not have a new one. But the male head of the family, even if he has an existing account, will have to get a new joint account with the wife. If he is a widower, the joint account will have to be with the senior female family member," the Minister said.
The collectors have been asked to complete the process of opening of accounts before 30th September.




4 years ago

Thanks And Vary Good decision
but i heard that each holder bank account should be nationalize bank
is it right or not?
if right ,our bank account already in private sector bank like federal,karnataka etc. then its going vary difficult to manage our account. so i think you be valid like banks

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)