Case Law Details
SEBI Vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Having regard to the fact that the dealings in the stock exchange are governed by the principles of fair play and transparency, one does not have to labour much on the meaning of unfair trade practices in securities. Contextually and in simple words, it means a practice which does not conform to the fair and transparent principles of trades in the stock market. In the instant case, one party booked gains and the other party booked a loss. Nobody intentionally trades for loss. An intentional trading for loss per se, is not a genuine dealing in securities. The platform of the stock exchange has been used for a non-genuine trade. Trading is always with the aim to make profits. But if one party consistently makes loss and that too in preplanned and rapid reverse trades, it is not genuine; it is an unfair trade practice. Securities market, as the 1956 Act provides in the preamble, does not permit “undesirable transactions in securities”. The Act intends to prevent undesirable transactions in securities by regulating the business of dealing therein. Undesirable transactions would certainly include unfair practices in trade. The SEBI Act, 1992 was enacted to protect the interest of the investors in securities. Protection of interest of investors should necessarily include prevention of misuse of the market. Orchestrated trades are a misuse of the market mechanism. It is playing the market and it affects the market integrity.
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 market.
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 occurs. In this context, the discussion in Ketan Parekh (supra) assumes significance:
“20. …As already observed ‘synchronisation’ or a negotiated dealipso facto is not illegal. A synchronised transaction will, however, be illegal or violative of the Regulations if it is executed with a view to manipulate the market or if it results in circular trading or is dubious in nature and is executed with a view to avoid regulatory detection or does not involve change of beneficial ownership or is executed to create false volumes resulting in upsetting the market equilibrium. Any transaction executed with the intention to defeat the market mechanism whether negotiated or not would be illegal. Whether a transaction has been executed with the intention to manipulate the market or defeat its mechanism will depend upon the intention of the parties which could be inferred from the attending circumstances because direct evidence in such cases may not be available. The nature of the transaction executed, the frequency with which such transactions are undertaken, the value of the transactions, whether they involve circular trading and whether there is real change of beneficial ownership, the conditions then prevailing in the market are some of the factors which go to show the intention of the parties. This list of factors, in the very nature of things, cannot be exhaustive. Any one factor may or may not be decisive and it is from the cumulative effect of these that an inference will have to be drawn.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
