Case: Securities & Exchange Board of India Vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd


Decision:
1[ds]33. We find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the SAT which is endorsed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents34. We are unable to agree with the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for Rakhi Trading. Regulation 4(1) in clear and unmistakable terms has provided that no person shall indulge in a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securitiesIn Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors. v. Shri Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel 43 and Ors. (2017 SCC Online SC 1148), it has been held by this Court that a trade practice is unfair if the conduct undermines the ethical standards and good faith dealings between the parties engaged in business transactions60. Coupled with the above, is the fact, the said conduct can also be construed to be an act of unfair trade practice, which though not a defined expression, has to be understood comprehensively to include any act beyond a fair conduct of business including the business in sale and purchase of securities. However the said question, as suggested by my learned Brother, Ramana, J. is being kept open for a decision in a more appropriate occasion as the resolution required presently can be made irrespective of a decision on the said question36. Ordinarily, the trading would have taken place between anonymous parties and the price would have been determined by the market forces of demand and supply. In the instant case, the parties did not stop at synchronised trading. The facts go beyond that. The trade reversals in this case indicate that the parties did not intend to transfer beneficial ownership and through these orchestrated transactions, the intention of which was not regular trading, other investors have been excluded from participating in these trades. The fact that when the trade was not synchronizing, the traders placed it at unattractive prices is also a strong indication that the traders intended to play with the market37. We also find it difficult to appreciate the stand of SAT that the rationale of change of beneficial ownership does not arise in the derivatives segment. No doubt, as in the case of trade in a scrip in the cash segment, there is no physical delivery of the asset. However, even in the derivative segment there is a change of rights in a contract. In the instant case, through reverse trades, there was no genuine change of rights in the contract. SAT has erred in its understanding of change in beneficial ownership in reverse trades. Even in derivatives, the ownership of the right is restored to the first party when the reverse trade occursFrom the facts before us, it is clear that the traders in question did not intend to transfer beneficial ownership and therefore these trades are non genuine38. Rather than allowing the market forces to operate in their natural course, the traders repeatedly carried out the impugned transactions which deprived other market players from full participation. The repeated reversals and predetermined arrangement to book profits and losses respectively, made it clear that the parties were not trading in the normal sense and ordinary course. Resultantly, there has clearly been a restriction on the free and fair operation of market forces in the instant case42. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of this Court in Securities And Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 )43. The traders thus having engaged in a fraudulent and unfair trade practice while dealing in securities, are hence liable to be proceeded against for violation of Regulations 3(a), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of PFUTP Regulations44. As far as brokers are concerned, we are of the view that there is hardly any evidence on their involvement so as to proceed against them for violation of Regulation 7A of the Brokers Regulations and PFUTP Regulations. Merely because a broker facilitated a transaction, it cannot be said that there is violation of the Regulation. SEBI has not provided any material to suggest negligence or connivance on the part of the brokers. As held by this Court in Kishore R. Ajmera (supra), there are several factors to be considered. We would especially like to refer to the case of Angel Trading wherein the broker repeatedly wrote to the National Stock Exchange informing them about trades in the options segment that were executed at unrealistic prices and requesting them to put in mechanisms in the Options segment so that these trades are not allowed to enter the system. In the absence of any material provided by SEBI to prove the charges against the brokers, particularly regarding aiding and abetting fraudulent or unfair trade practices, we are of the opinion that the orders of SEBI against the brokers should be interfered with