BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
[ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. AP/AO- 18/2005-06]
In the matter of Investigations in
DSQ BIOTECH LTD
AND
In respect of
LUMINANT INVESTMENT PVT LTD
01. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) conducted investigation into suspected fraudulent and unfair trade practices in the scrip of DSQ Biotech Ltd. (hereinafter, DSQ). Pursuant to the aforesaid investigation, SEBI appointed the undersigned as the Adjudicating Officer under Section 15 I of SEBI Act, 1992, vide order dated July 07, 2005, to inquire into and adjudge the alleged failure of Luminant Investment Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter, LIL) to comply with the summons issued by the Investigating Officer, SEBI. It was alleged that LIL violated the provisions of Section 11C (3) and 11C (5) of SEBI Act, 1992 for which penalty can be imposed under Sections 15A of SEBI Act, 1992. The aforesaid appointment was communicated vide proceedings of the Whole Time Member, SEBI, dated July 25, 2005.
02. The undersigned issued a show cause notice (SCN) dated September 14, 2005 under Rule 4(1) of SEBI (Procedure For Holding Inquiry And Imposing Penalties By Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter, Adjudication Rules) to LIL, communicating the allegations levelled against it and calling up on it as to why an inquiry in terms of the said Rules should not be conducted against it. LIL denied the allegations vide its letter dated October 03, 2005.
03. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the undersigned thought it fit to hold an inquiry in the matter. Accordingly, a notice of inquiry dated October 07, 2005 was issued to LIL, fixing October 24, 2005 as the date for inquiry. In response, LIL vide letter dated October 18, 2005 sought all the relied upon documents for the inquiry. During the personal hearing held on October 24, 2005 it was clarified to LIL that all the relied upon document were enclosed with the SCN, and accordingly no further objection was raised by the Advocate appearing for LIL.
04. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Advocate, The Law Desk, appeared on behalf of LIL for the inquiry on October 24, 2005 and reiterated the submission made vide letter October 03, 2005 and pleaded for lenient view in the matter as LIL co-operated with the investigations and violation, if any, was not intentional and sought dropping of the charges.
05. Having carefully perused the material on record I proceed to record my finding as follows, but before that, it is important to at least briefly understand the background under which information was sought from LIL and also the relevant definitions in this regard:
(i) SEBI Act, 1992
Section 15A (a):
Penalty for failure to furnish information, return, etc.
15A. If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder,-
(a) to furnish any document, return or report to the Board, fails to furnish the same, he shall be liable to [a penalty of one lakh rupees each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less]
Section 11 C (3): The Investigation Authority may require any intermediary or any person associated with securities market in any manner to furnish such information to, or produce such books, or registers, or other documents, or record before him or any person authorized by it in this behalf as it may consider necessary if the furnishing of such information or the production of such books, or registers, or other documents, or record is relevant or necessary for the purpose of its investigation.
Section 11 C (5): Any person, directed to make an investigation under sub-section (1), may examine on oath, any manager, managing director, officer and other employee of any intermediary or any person associated with securities market in any manner, in relation to the affairs of his business and may administer an oath accordingly and for that purpose may require any of those persons to appear before it personally.
(ii) SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003
Regulation 8: Duty to co-operate, etc.
(1) It shall be the duty of every person in respect of whom an investigation has been ordered under regulation 7
(a) to produce to the Investigating Authority or any person authorized by him such books, accounts and other documents and record in his custody or control and to furnish such statements and information as the Investigating Authority or the person so authorized by him may reasonably require for the purpose of the investigation;
(b) to appear before the Investigating Authority personally when required to do so by him under regulation 9 or regulation 7 to answer any question which is put to him by the Investigating Authority in pursuance of the powers under the said regulations.
06. SEBI launched investigation into the scrip of DSQ for the period of July 2000 to November 2000 as there were large fluctuations in its price and the volumes traded; in BSE it moved from Rs. 223.30 on July 17, 2000 to Rs. 58.55 on October 19, 2000. Subsequently, the price of the scrip moved from Rs. 72 on October 23, 2000 to Rs. 190.25 on November 20, 2000. The Investigations revealed that the aforesaid price fluctuation and the accompanying increase in volumes, both at BSE and NSE, were as a result of fraudulent and unfair trade practices, including synchronized trades by associate entities of DSQ (namely, DSQ Holdings Ltd, DSQ Industries Ltd, Square D Textiles and Exports Ltd, Powerflow Holdings & Trading Pvt. Ltd, Hulda Properties & Trades Ltd, Palliyar Pattiyar Textiles Ltd, Berral Trading & Investments Ltd, Arun Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Cooltex Commodities Pvt Ltd and Aspolight Barter) on one hand and entities of broker Ketan Parekh (namely, Classic Share and Stock Broking Services Ltd, NH Securities, Panther Fincap Management Services Ltd, Classic Credit Ltd and Luminant Investment Pvt. Ltd) on the other hand. More seriously, investigations also finds that 8,030,000 partly paid-up shares (issued at Rs. 275, but paid-up to a value of Rs. 1/-) of DSQ issued in March 2000 on a preferential were also used to carry out the aforesaid manipulation. The equity of DSQ moved upto 22,506,380 shares from 14,476,380 shares as result of this preferential allotment, i.e. after the preferential allotment, 35.68% of the shares of DSQ were fraudulently issued and introduced into the capital market. The total value of the fraud can be calculated as a product of the number of shares issued on preferential basis and the value of the money at call, which works out to RS. 22,002 lakhs (8,030,000 x Rs. 274). The investigations alleged that the aforesaid ‘allotees’ were also associate entities of DSQ and they transferred these ‘partly’ paid-up and unlisted shares to the demat account of DSQ Holdings, who in turn used these shares in the market to avail funding, in the process mis-utilising the trading platform of the stock exchanges.
07. The modus operandi of trading in shares for raising short term funds, as per the investigations is as follows: Associated entities of DSQ (chiefly DSQ Holdings) ‘sold’ large quantities of shares of DSQ through willing brokers, including CSFB, who paid funds to the seller immediately, rather than on the day of pay-out by the clearing corporation. To that extent, the seller raised funds for the duration from the date of sale to the date of pay-out, using unlisted and ‘unpaid shares. The aforesaid ‘sale’ were synchronized such that the buyer was invariably an entity of Ketan Parekh or another associated entity of DSQ. Thus, the funding transaction was given the colour of share trading, (for which guarantee of the clearing corporation is available) and there was no change in beneficial ownership of these shares as the ‘buyer’ was either another associated entity of DSQ or entities of Ketan Parekh; the latter in turn reversed the transaction, once again, through synchronized trades.
08. LIL is an entity of Ketan Parekh and it is in this background it was summoned under section 11C(5) of SEBI Act, 1992 by the Investigating Officer (IO) vide summons dated November 08, 2004 to appear in person on November 18, 2004 and also to furnish relevant information/documents, including those pertaining to its trading in the scrip of DSQ for the period September 27, 2000 to January 9, 2001. LIL sought postponement of the date of for personal appearance vide letter dated November 11, 2004. Accordingly, December 09, 2004 was fixed as the date for personal appearance, vide letter dated November 19, 2004.
09. Mr. Akash S. Ganachari (ASG), authorized representative of LIL appeared before the IO on December 09, 2004 and his statement was recorded as under:
"Statement/Notes of examinations on Oath of Shri Akash S Ganachari, Authorized Representative of Luminant Investment Pvt. Ltd. recorded at SEBI, Mumbai on December 09, 2004 at 4:00 pm in the matter of their dealings in the securities of DSQ Bio tech Ltd. under section 11C of SEBI Act, 1992
1. For the purposes of record please identify yourself.
Name: I am Akash S Ganachari, S/o Someshekhar M Ganachari, r/o Jai Shivam CHS, B Wing Ground Floor, Ramnagar, Dombivali (East).
Photocopy of the PAN card is submitted herewith.
I am an employee of the company for the last four years and was with the company during the period under reference.
2. Please confirm whether you are aware of the facts and the circumstances relating to the case and that you have been authorized to explain the circumstances and also reply to notes/ comments/ queries raised by the Investigation Authority.
Yes I confirm the above.
3. Please explain the nature of the firm, giving therein the names of the directors etc.
It is an NBFC, registered with the RBI bearing registration no. 13.01430.
During the period under reference the directors of the company were Shri Ketan P Parekh and Shri Mukesh Joshi.
The present directors of the company are Shri Vishal Pancholi and Shri Mukesh Joshi.
4. As per the information available with us the directors of the company at that time were Shri Ketan Parekh, Arun Jayantilal Shah, Shri Bimal Jasvantal Parekh and Shri Jayesh Dhirajlal Parekh. Please explain the contrary information provided by you above.
I was not aware and have missed giving the names of the other directors.
5. Please state the nature of the business activity of the company.
We used to deal in shares and securities.
6. Please tell us about the objectives of the company for its dealing in the capital market.
To make profits.
7. Please state whether you have any sister/associate/group concerns operating in the capital market. If so please state their names, and if any of them is registered with any regulator please quote the registration no.
I am not aware of any sister/associate/group concerns operating in the capital market.
8. With how many brokers you were registered as a client during the period under reference?
Right now I do not have any information.
9. It is observed that you have received atleast one month time for collating the information relating to your dealings in the scrip for the specific period and yet it is seen that you are not aware of most of the queries and information sought uptill now. It appears that you are deliberately trying to withhold the information and thus create obstacles in the proceedings of these investigations. Please be informed that these tactics are violative of the SEBI Act and the provisions there in and you are bound to supply and produce the information and the documents requisitioned herein.
I have read and understood what is stated above. I am not creating obstacles.
10. Please submit the details of the trades done by you in the scrip during the period under reference.
The information is submitted herewith.
11. It is observed from the information submitted by you that you have dealt with Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB). In this respect please state when you were registered with the broker as a client.
I don't know.
12. It appears that you were registered with multiple brokers at that point of time. In this scenario please explain the rationale for dealing with multiple brokers.
I am not aware of the rationale.
13. Did you disclose to the CSFB that you were dealing with multiple brokers and that you were also registered as a client with other brokers.
I am not aware whether this information was given to the CSFB.
14. Are you aware that as per the KYC requirements you are required to provide this information to the broker with whom you are registering
No. I am not aware of the above.
15. As per the information submitted by you have sold 5,10,000 shares on December 30, 2000 and another 5,50,000 shares on January 03, 2001. Please demonstrate the availability of these shares for the settlement obligations. Also please submit the details of the payments received for the details under reference.
Right now I am not having any of the details sought for.
I have received the payment on the same day and have delivered the shares to them on the same day or the next day.
16. It is observed from the replies that you are not aware of almost majority of the queries posed to you above, however, you have chosen to reply to query no.2 above that you are aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the dealing in the scrip during the period under reference. It appears that you are misrepresenting the facts during these proceedings. Please be aware that as has been acknowledged by you earlier- "I know giving a false statement is an offence." Further that you have failed to produce and submit any document/detail sought for above except about the dates of the two deals with CSFB. This is non-compliance with the summons issued to you in this regard wherein in you were required to be present for the deposition along with the related documents. Please explain.
No comments.
17. Please state for the matter of records- in what position you are employed with the company.
I am in the accounts department in the capacity of an Account Assistant.
18. Please state again whether you were employed with this firm during the period under reference. Please answer yes or no.
I am not employed with this company but I am working for this company in the accounts department.
19. Your attention is drawn to the summons issued to you where it has been stated your presence is required in the said matter along with all the related documents and that you shall be accompanied by persons who shall be able to and also be authorized to give clarification/comments as required by the Investigating Authority. It is observed that you have neither produced all relevant documents nor have you been able to reply to the clarifications/queries raised during the proceedings. Is this not non-compliance with summons issued to you. Please comment.
No comments.
20. Do you have anything else to state in the matter?
No."
10. ASG, in answer to query No 1 & 2 stated that he is an employee of LIL for the last four years and was an employee during the period under reference and confirmed that he is aware of facts and circumstances relating to the case. Notwithstanding this, it is seen in answer to query 18 that ASG denied being an employee of LIL. Further, in answers to queries 3 & 4, ASG stated that he was not aware of names of all the directors of LIL during the period under reference. He was able to give the names of just 2 directors (namely, Ketan Parekh and Mukesh Joshi) as against the 4 directors in the list available with the IO (namely, Ketan Parekh, Arun J Shah, Bimal J Parekh and Jayesh D Parekh). Even the two directors named by ASG, one of them, namely Mukesh Joshi, did not tally with the list of names of directors of LIL, available with IO. There are only two inferences possible from the aforesaid – either ASG was ignorant or was deliberately misleading the investigations. In either case, it reflects badly on the attitude of LIL towards the investigation. This is despite the fact that LIL was given ample time to prepare them for furnishing the information relating to this investigation.
11. In response to query 7, ASG stated that he is not aware if any associate/sister concern/ group concern of LIL is operating in the capital markets. This is in direct contradiction to his reply to query 2, wherein he confirmed of being aware of the matter at hand. This only confirms that LIL exhibited non co-operation and tried to evade investigations. However, ASG submitted details of trades done by LIL in the scrip of DSQ in the period under consideration, in response to query 10.
12. In response to query 8, ASG pleaded lack of awareness about the number of brokers with whom LIL was registered as a client. Further in response to query 11, ASG repeated his ignorance about the fact that LIL was registered with broker CSFB as a client. From the matter on record it is clear that LIL was a registered client of CSFB. That the representative of LIL pleaded ignorance on this basic fact leads to only one conclusion – LIL was intent on misleading the investigation by evasion and non co-operation. It is not the case of LIL that the IO wanted to see the face of ASG, for which summons was issued. The summons clearly stated that it is issued in pursuance of investigation in the scrip of DSQ for the period September 27, 2000 to January 9, 2001 and that the person representing LIL before the IO should be in a position to offer /furnish clarifications / comments/documents, as required by the IO. LIL chose not to do so.
13. The reply of ASG to queries 12, 13 & 14 only strengthens my above finding. ASG pleaded ignorance about LIL being registered with many brokers and also about the fact that it traded trough many broker during the period under consideration. As per the ‘Know Your Client’ prescribed by SEBI, any entity registering with a stock broker as a client has to disclose if he / it is already registered with any other broker. ASG was not aware as to whether the aforesaid procedure was adhered to by LIL, while registering as client of CSFB. Further he was not even aware that such a procedure was in existence! This is another stark illustration of the very casual attitude of LIL towards the investigations, especially when the entity was thoroughly dealing in the capital market having market players on the Board.
14. Continuing with expression of ignorance, ASG stated that he was not aware of details of availability of shares of about 5 lakh share of DSQ, sold by LIL on December 30, 2000 and January 03, 2001 respectively in response to query 15. This need to be seen in the background that shares of DSQ, issued under preferential allotment were ‘unpaid’ and unlisted. It was the duty of the IO to find out who and how these illegal shares were illegally introduced in the market. This information would also be crucial for the Board to take necessary counter measures to protect the interest of investors. The information sought was extremely crucial and critical from the point of view of the IO and failure of LIL to furnish the same at any stage, or even in the present proceedings, makes the case and violations serious, deliberate and intentional one. It cannot be the case of LIL that the IO did not grant sufficient notice period for it to come prepared for the personal appearance as the summons for personal appearance on December 09, 2004 was sent vide letter dated November 19, 2004. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion it is established that LIL deliberately and willfully did not co-operate with investigations.
15. As regards the conduct of LIL, it may be reiterated that even after the personal appearance, before the IO on December 09, 2004, it did not take the necessary remedial steps to provide information sought by the IO, specifically pertaining to queries 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 for which ASG claimed ignorance. Nothing prevented LIL from subsequently furnishing the information sought by IO on December 09, 2004, after the hearing but it did not do so. Instead, vide letter dated December 22, 2004, LIL stated that ASG answered all queries pertaining to buying and selling of shares of DSQ shares. While submitting that it is not possible for one single person to have all information about an aspect of transactions, the tone of this letter suggests that ASG could not answer other queries as they were unrelated to the investigation. Rather than providing information sought by IO, LIL resorted to legalize its stand and justify its non-co-operation to investigations.
16. Further, the show cause notice dated September 14, 2005 issued in this proceedings to LIL, specifically mentions not providing the information sought vide queries 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 on December 9, 2004, as the violation. In its reply dated October 3, 2005 LIL contented that what ever information that was relevant to investigations and was available with LIL at that time, was submitted by ASG to the IO. LIL also pointed out its constraints in gathering information because the cited trades happened four years ago and moreover many of their documents had been seized by many authorities. In its reply to the adjudication notice LIL further questioned the motives of the IO in asking questions that were not relevant to the investigations. LIL denied that it withheld the information deliberately. Specifically referring to query No 7., LIL submitted that it was irrelevant to the investigations. As regards of queries 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 & 16, there is a complete silence in the reply of LIL and no attempt is made to explain the reasons as to why the information is not furnished. Notwithstanding the constraints in gathering the information sought, I am disinclined to give LIL the benefit of doubt, given the manner in which it has repeatedly questioned the motives and relevance of investigation and resorted to non-co-operation during the entire process.
17. Even in the personal hearing held on October 24, 2005 before me, LIL did not provide the cited information, and nor made any oral submissions to explain its conduct.
18. The power to seek information under oath is derived by IO from the provisions of Section 11C (3), 11C (5) and 11 (3) of SEBI Act, 1992. Further, Regulations 8 (1) (a) & (b) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 also makes it mandatory for any entity to provide information as sought by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, by not providing details and information in response to the summons dated November 8, 2004 issued by IO under statutory powers granted u/s 11C (3), 11C (5) and 11 (3) of SEBI Act, 1992, LIL has violated Regulation 8 (1) (a) and (b) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 for which penalty is imposable u/s 15A (a). It is reiterated that even subsequently to the personal appearance on December 9, 2004 also LIL did not bother to provide the information sought by the IO, as already discussed.
19. The violation thus being established, the undersigned considered the following factors as provided in the section 15J of SEBI Act to determine the quantum of penalty that can be imposed under Section 15A (a) of SEBI Act, 1992 viz. (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 and; (c) the repetitive nature of the default.
20. As already discussed 8,030,000 ‘unpaid’ shares of DSQ were issued vide preferential allotment in March 2000 to its associated entities. It is also seen that these shares were used to generate artificial volumes in the market through synchronized trades and for funding, as discussed earlier. Taking into the consideration that LIL chose not to reply to the specific query (no. 15), wherein the details of source of 10.60 lakh shares of DSQ, (which were sold by it on December 30, 2000 and January 3, 2001), I hold that the unfair gain to LIL by not providing information to IO would be the value of these 10.6 lakhs shares. In order to work out the penalty, the value of these 10.6 lakh shares is calculated as follows:
|
Equity of DSQ (no of shares)
|
14,476,380
|
A
|
|
No of shares issued under preferential allotment (PA)
|
8,030,000
|
B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity of DSQ, post preferential allotment (no of shares)
|
22,506,380
|
C (A+B)
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Fraudulent shares to total equity of DSQ
|
35.68%
|
D (B/C*100)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price per share issued under PA (Rs.)
|
275
|
E
|
|
Paid-up' amount per share (Rs.)
|
1
|
F
|
|
Money at call per share (Rs.)
|
274
|
G (E-F)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total value of money at call of shares issued in PA (Rs.)
|
2,200,220,000
(220.02 crs)
|
H (G X B)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No of Shares sold by LIL on 30.12.00
|
510,000
|
(I1)
|
|
No of Shares sold by LIL on 03.01.01
|
550,000
|
I2
|
|
Total
|
1,060,000
|
I
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value of the fraudulent shares held by LIL (Rs.)
|
290,440,000
(29.04 crs)
|
J(I x G)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average of lowest traded price of DSQ at NSE on 29.12.00 & 01.01.01*
|
162.30
|
K
|
|
Lowest traded price of DSQ at NSE on 03.01.01
|
155.15
|
L
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual value of the fraudulent shares sold by LIL
|
|
|
|
On (a) 30.12.00 = 5,10,000 x 162.30 (Rs.)
|
82,773,000
|
(I1 X K)
|
|
(b) 03.01.01= 5,50,000 x 155.15 (Rs.)
|
85,332,500
|
(I2 X L)
|
|
Total (Rs.)
|
168,105,500
(16.80 crs)
|
|
* as there were no trades on NSE on 30.12.05
|
|
|
From the above it may be fairly concluded that the lowest value of undue gain attributable to LIL may be to the tune of Rs. 16.80 crores.
21. The Hon'ble SAT in its order dated May 20, 2005 in the appeal no. 114 of 2005 in the matter of Nokia Finance International vs. SEBI, has upheld the manner of computation of the penalty taking the aforesaid figures into consideration while arriving to a figure of penalty. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:
“It is a serious case of excess dematerialized shares than the authorized capital being traded in the market. The appellant could have availed of the opportunity of submitting all the required information and come clean, but he failed to do so. We, therefore, feel that there is no violation of natural justice in this particular case and the penalty has been imposed as per the regulations. The impugned order indicates that the various factors to be reckoned under Section 15(J) of SEBI Act, 1992 were duly considered before deciding on the quantum of penalty imposed. In view of the fact that appellant has failed to give the necessary information to the respondent for conducting investigation into a very serious irregularity in the market, we are inclined to uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal”.
22. The SAT in its earlier ruling in the order dated May 04, 2001 in the appeal No. 36 of 2000 in the matter of Yogi Sungwon (India) Ltd. vs SEBI, also ruled that the AO has to satisfy himself about the severity of the violation before imposing penalty. The relevant portion of this order is as follows:
“As already stated above, in terms of section 15I whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform the statutory obligation is a matter of discretion left to the Adjudicating Officer and that discretion has to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Further in case it is felt that penalty is warranted the quantum has to be decided taking into consideration the factors stated in section 15J. It is not that the penalty is attracted perse the violation. The Adjudicating Officer has to satisfy that the violation deserved punishment.”
23. Taking a definite clue from the guidelines laid down by SAT, I am fully satisfied that this case deserves severe penalty since it is a matter of multi crore fraud amounting to RS. 220 crores as detailed in the table above. Specifically, LIL held 10.60 lakhs of shares of DSQ, whose ‘value at fraud’ works out to Rs. 29 crs; these shares were sold in the market at a value of Rs. 16 crs. LIL did not disclose the source of availability of these 10.6 lakhs shares when this information was sought by the IO through summons. In other words it can be said that there is an undue enrichment equivalent to the said amount to LIL.
24. Further, it may be emphasized that 348 days have elapsed since the violation occurred and the violation continues till date. For such violation, penalty of Rs. one lakh per day of the violation or Rs. one crore, whichever is the least, is prescribed u/s 15A (a) of SEBI Act, 1992. Therefore in the circumstances and given the value of the undue gain attributable to LIL, I find it appropriate to impose maximum penalty as prescribed under Section 15A(a) of SEBI Act, 1992 on LIL for its failure to provide information on December 9, 2004 and till date.
25. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 15-I (2) of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with Rule 5 of SEBI Adjudication Rules, I hereby impose a penalty of Rs. 1 crore (One Crore only) on Luminant Investment Pvt. Ltd. under section 15A (a) of SEBI Act, 1992 for failure to furnish information to the IO, in response to statutory summons issued under provisions of Section 11C (3), 11C (5) and 11(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
26. Luminant Investment Pvt. Ltd. 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 Shri P K Bindlish, General Manager, Investigation, ID-3, Mittal Court, 1st floor, B- Wing, 224, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.
27. This order of adjudication is made and passed on 22nd day of November 2005 at Mumbai.
(AMIT PRADHAN)
ADJUDICATING OFFICER