{"id":21909,"date":"2007-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-13T07:21:56","modified_gmt":"2017-07-13T01:51:56","slug":"sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Securities Appellate Tribunal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Chopra<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>V.K. Chopra, Member<\/p>\n<p>1.0 BACKGROUND<\/p>\n<p>1.1 Mr Shyam Sundar Dalmia, is a Broker of Calcutta Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Broker&#8221;) with SEBI Registration No INB030077614. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to in short as &#8220;the Board&#8221;) had conducted investigation into the dealings of several entities including the broker Mr Shyam Sundar Dalmia in the shares of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (hereinafter referred to in short as &#8220;Ranbaxy&#8221;). <\/p>\n<p>1.2 The price of the scrip of Ranbaxy moved up significantly from Rs. 270\/- in January 1999 to about Rs. 1200\/- in October 1999 accompanied with significant increase in volumes. The Board initiated preliminary investigation into the scrip in August 1999 considering the above major spurt in price and volumes traded in the Exchanges particularly on the Stock Exchange, Mumbai (BSE), National Stock Exchange (NSE), Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE).\n<\/p>\n<p>1.3 The Board after considering the Investigation Report appointed an Enquiry Officer vide Order dated November 27, 2002 to enquire into the violations allegedly committed by the Broker under the provisions of the Regulation 7, read with schedule II, clause A(3) and (4) of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules and Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to in short as &#8220;Stock Brokers Regulations&#8221;) and the provisions of Regulation 4 (a),(b),(c) and (d) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to in short as &#8220;PFUTP Regulations&#8221;) and Rules, Regulations and Byelaws of Stock Exchanges.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.4 The Enquiry Officer, after conducting an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 6 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and imposing penalty) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to in short as &#8220;Enquiry Regulations&#8221;) submitted a report dated December 23, 2003 under Regulation 13(1) of the Enquiry Regulations whereby he observed that the Broker has violated the provisions of SEBI circular No.SMDRP\/POLICY\/CIR-32\/1999 dated September 14, 1999; Regulation 7 read with clause A(3) and (4) of Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule II of Stock Brokers Regulations, and Regulation 4(b) &amp; (c) of PFUTP Regulations. He recommended suspension of registration of the Broker for a period of five months.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.0 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE <\/p>\n<p>2.1 Pursuant to the receipt of the said Enquiry Report, a Show Cause Notice dated April 28, 2004 was issued to the Broker, along with a copy of the said Enquiry Report, advising him to show cause as to why the action, as recommended by the Enquiry Officer or any other penalty deemed appropriate should not be imposed on them. The Broker submitted its reply to the said show cause notice, vide letter dated May 19, 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0 REPLY OF THE BROKER<\/p>\n<p>3.1 The Broker stated that the recommendation made by the Enquiry Officer is not commensurate with the purported findings and hence the same is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.2 The Broker stated that they did not execute any synchronized trades in the scrip of Ranbaxy. They further stated that the charge of artificial matching of trade by executing 41 transactions can not be levelled merely because a purchase order and a sale order happens to be entered at around the same time for the same price and that too in a screen based trading mechanism of the stock exchange.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.3 The Broker submitted that the Enquiry Officer has failed to show the basis on which prices and quantities have been negotiated outside the system.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.4 The Broker stated that 17 out of a total of 41 transactions took place prior to September 14, 1999, the date on which SEBI issued its circular prohibiting negotiated deals and thus the alleged violation in respect of gross trades of 1,71,500 shares of Ranbaxy is not sustainable, and that such allegations, if any, ought to be restricted only to 86,000 shares.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.5 The Broker stated that the rationale behind the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding the transactions matched with Dinesh Kumar Singhania, and Asok Kumar Poddar who were associated with Ketan Parekh Group is inexplicable. The Broker further submitted that there is not even an allegation in the Enquiry Report that they were aware of any linkage between the said brokers and Ketan Parekh Group.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0 HEARING<\/p>\n<p>4.1 In their said reply to show cause notice, the Broker requested for an opportunity of personal hearing. The Broker was accordingly advised to attend the personal hearing before me at Head Office SEBI at Mumbai on September 28, 2006. Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, Advocate, J. Sagar &amp; Associates and Mr Rajesh Sinha, Company Secretary, M\/s Dalmia Securities (P) Ltd. attended the hearing and also filed written submission dated September 28, 2006. Therefore, I am proceeding in the matter on the basis of the submission of the Broker and the material before me.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.0 CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES &amp; FINDINGS<\/p>\n<p>5.1 I have carefully examined the Enquiry Report, Show Cause Notice, reply of the Broker and submissions made at the time of hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.2 The scrip of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (herein after referred as Ranbaxy) traded around the price range of Rs. 270\/- at the beginning of January 1999. The price of the scrip moved up to Rs. 320\/- by the end of January 1999 and it continued to move upward during February &#8211; March 1999 and reached to Rs. 650\/- by end of March 1999. The price of the scrip thereafter moved to Rs. 700\/- during May 1999 and came down to Rs. 600\/- during June 1999. The price subsequently touched Rs. 800\/- during July 1999 and Rs. 1000\/- during August 1999. The scrip was being traded in the range of Rs. 900\/- to Rs. 1100\/- during August &#8211; September 1999 and its price increased to Rs. 1200\/- during October 1999. Effectively the price of the scrip moved up from Rs. 267 on 01.01.99 to a high of Rs. 1215\/- on 13.10.99. Later on the price started falling gradually and closed at Rs. 869 on 29.10.99 at BSE.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.3 The Enquiry Officer has arrived at a conclusion in his enquiry report that the Broker has carried out 41 instances of synchronization of trades with a view to create misleading appearance of trading which tampers with price discovery mechanism of stock exchange.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.4 I find that the other charges levelled against the Broker are on the basis of the aforesaid synchronized trades. The synchronized trade is a kind of transactions where the seller and buyer execute the trade for almost same quantity and price at substantially the same time. I find that synchronized deal is not per se illegal. On the other hand, the synchronized deal with fraudulent or deceptive intention to create misleading appearance of trading and to manipulate the price and volume of the scrip price to tamper the price discovery mechanism of stock exchange with a view to get undue gain out of it is a serious offence.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.5 Hence the issue to be decided in this case is whether the Broker has carried out any such synchronized trades and to take a decision as to whether the penalty recommended by the Enquiry Officer against the Broker is warranted or not. In order to decide the said issue, I felt it necessary to analyze the details of synchronized trades executed by the Broker given hereunder;\n<\/p>\n<p>                        Part I<br \/>\nBuy Mem Name         Trade date  Buy Order time Buy order Buy orde<br \/>\n                                                   Qty    rrate<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/11\/1999    11:20:33     25000     758.20<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/11\/1999    11:56:49     25000     758.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/11\/1999    13:01:25     10000     754.70<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/11\/1999    13:11:20     10000     757.20<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/11\/1999    13:12:43     15000     757.70<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/11\/1999    14:05:35     25000     751.90<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   5\/26\/1999    11:27:34     50000     631.60<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   6\/8\/1999     14:00:10     20000     609.80<br \/>\nARUN KUMAR &amp; CO.      6\/9\/1999     10:26:38     5000      608.50<br \/>\nGKCL STOCK BROKING<br \/>\nPVT. LTD.             6\/23\/1999    11:50:09     5000      653.10<br \/>\nGOPAL PRASAD CHOKHANY 6\/23\/1999    12:39:06     5000      654.80<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   6\/23\/1999    12:53:24     24000     661.50<br \/>\nSHANKAR LAL CHOKHANY  6\/29\/1999    12:10:19     10000     665.70<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   7\/7\/1999     11:19:10     35000     700.40<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   7\/20\/1999    14:48:57     16000     806.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   7\/21\/1999    13:33:28     15000     857.40<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   8\/24\/1999    14:27:25     25000     1032.70<br \/>\nSALASAR STOCK<br \/>\nBROKING LTD.          9\/14\/1999    13:58:37     15000     1065.70<br \/>\nSHRUTI MOHTA          9\/15\/1999    15:08:09     15000     1041.20<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   9\/22\/1999    14:04:18     15000     1038.60<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   9\/27\/1999    13:41:27     40000     1055.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   9\/29\/1999    13:59:06     10000     1090.10<br \/>\nKAMAL KUMAR<br \/>\nDUGAR &amp; CO            9\/29\/1999    14:05:53     10000     1090.80<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/1\/1999    14:07:08     20000     1034.60<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/4\/1999    13:03:56     25000     1001.30<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/5\/1999    13:24:56     15000     1006.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/6\/1999    13:30:48     14000     1012.80<br \/>\nKANDOI SECURITIES<br \/>\nPVT. LTD              10\/11\/1999   11:09:37     20000     1194.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/11\/1999   11:11:09     20000     1193.00<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/12\/1999   13:58:41     10000     1151.80<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/15\/1999   12:52:44     12500     1173.40<br \/>\nSONTHALIA &amp; CO.       10\/15\/1999   12:53:45     10000     1173.80<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/15\/1999   13:16:54     25000     1174.40<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/15\/1999   13:26:51     20000     1171.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/15\/1999   13:52:27     5000      1162.10<br \/>\nDALMIA SECURITIES<br \/>\n(P) LTD.              10\/15\/1999   14:13:58     30000     1154.40<br \/>\nNARAIN PRASAD DALMIA  10\/15\/1999   14:18:15     30000     1144.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/15\/1999   15:14:44     5000      1116.50<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/25\/1999   12:13:21     15000     1009.40<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/29\/1999   13:48:14     20000     898.60<br \/>\nSHYAM SUNDAR DALMIA   10\/29\/1999   13:48:59     20000     898.40<br \/>\n                        Part II<br \/>\nSell Mem          Sell     Sell    Sell     Time     Price<br \/>\nName              Order    Order   order    Diffe    diffe<br \/>\n                  time     Qty     rate     rence    rence<br \/>\nSHANKAR LAL<br \/>\nCHOKHANY         11:20:33  25000   758.20  0:00:00   0.00<br \/>\nSHRUTI MOHTA     11:56:50  25000   758.50  0:00:01   0.00<br \/>\nSOMANI STOCK<br \/>\nBROKING PVT.\n<\/p>\n<pre>LTD              13:01:25  10000   754.70  0:00:00   0.00\nGOPAL PRASAD\nCHOKHANY         13:11:20  10000   757.20  0:00:00   0.00\nDINESH KUMAR\nSINGHANIA &amp; CO.  13:12:44  15000   757.70  0:00:01   0.00\nASHOK KUMAR\nPODDAR           14:05:35  25000   751.90  0:00:00   0.00\nDALMIA SECURITIES\n(P) LTD.         11:27:34  50000   631.60  0:00:00   0.00\nSOMANI STOCK\nBROKING PVT. LTD. 14:00:10  20000   609.80  0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           10:26:38  5000    608.50  0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           11:50:09  5000    653.10  0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           12:39:06  5000    654.80  0:00:00   0.00\nSHRUTI MOHTA     12:53:24  24000   661.50  0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           12:10:20  10000   665.70  0:00:01   0.00\nSHANKAR LAL\nCHOKHANY         11:19:10  35000   700.40  0:00:00   0.00\nJANKIDAS\nMOHATA           14:48:58  16000   806.50  0:00:01   0.00\nSHANKAR LAL\nCHOKHANY         13:33:28  15000   857.40  0:00:00   0.00\nM\/s Loknath\nSaraf            14:27:26  25000   1032.70 0:00:01   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           13:58:38  15000   1065.70 0:00:01   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           15:08:09  15000   1041.20 0:00:00   0.00\nRAJENDRA KUMAR\nCHOKHANY         14:04:18  15000   1038.60 0:00:00   0.00\nM\/s Loknath\nSaraf            13:41:27  40000   1055.50 0:00:00   0.00\nSONTHALIA &amp; CO.  13:59:06  10000   1090.10 0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           14:05:53  10000   1090.80 0:00:00   0.00\nDALMIA\nSECURITIES\n(P) LTD.         14:07:09  20000   1034.60 0:00:01   0.00\nLALIT &amp; CO.      13:03:56  25000   1001.30 0:00:00   0.00\nLALIT &amp; CO.      13:24:55  15000   1006.50 0:00:01   0.00\nM\/s Loknath\nSaraf            13:30:48  14000   1012.80 0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           11:09:37  20000   1194.50 0:00:00   0.00\nSANJEEV B.\nPHUMBHRA &amp; CO.   11:11:07  20000   1193.00 0:00:02   0.00\nLALIT &amp; CO.      13:58:41  10000   1151.80 0:00:00   0.00\nGAUTAM BAJORIA   12:52:44  12500   1173.40 0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           12:53:45  10000   1173.80  0:00:00   0.00\nAgbros Securities\nPvt. Ltd.        13:16:54  25000   1174.40  0:00:00   0.00\nPRAKASH BAID\nSECURITIES PVT.  13:26:51  20000   1171.50  0:00:00   0.00\nTACKEL STOCK\nBROKING SERVICES 13:52:27  5000    1162.10  0:00:00   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           14:14:01  30000   1154.40  0:00:03   0.00\nSHYAM SUNDAR\nDALMIA           14:18:15  30000   1144.50  0:00:00   0.00\nPRADEEP KAYAN\n&amp; CO.            15:14:44  5000    1116.50  0:00:00   0.00\nDALMIA SECURITIES\n(P) LTD.         12:13:20  15000   1009.40  0:00:01   0.00\nNARAIN PRASAD\nDALMIA           13:48:14  20000   898.60   0:00:00   0.00\nDALMIA SECURITIES\n(P) LTD.         13:48:59  20000   898.40   0:00:00   0.00\n \n\n<\/pre>\n<p>5.6 I observe from the above table that the Broker had executed 41 synchronized\/matching trades in the shares of Ranbaxy with the counter party brokers. Synchronized\/matching trades are evident from the fact that in all cases order quantity and price are same with counter party order quantity and price. Orders were placed at exactly the same time in most of the cases with counter party brokers while in few cases the orders were matched within a period of 1-3 seconds. I have also observed that the total trades of the Broker was 7,41,500 shares and percentage of matching transactions of the Broker to their total transactions in the share of Ranbaxy during the period under consideration is 14%. However, compared to the market volume this quantity is minuscule.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.7 I have also observed that order of 40,000 shares out of total of 7,41,500 shares (i.e. 5%) of the Broker were matched with the brokers, Dinesh Kumar Singhania &amp; Co. and Ashok Kumar Poddar. The details are hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>                             Part I<br \/>\nBuy      Trade     Buy       Buy       Buy<br \/>\nMem      date      Order     order     order<br \/>\nName               time      Qty       rate<br \/>\nSHYAM<br \/>\nSUNDAR<br \/>\nDALMIA   5\/11\/1999 13:12:43  15000   757.70<br \/>\nSHYAM<br \/>\nSUNDAR<br \/>\nDALMIA   5\/11\/1999 14:05:35  25000  751.90<\/p>\n<p>                      Part II<br \/>\nSell       Sell       Sell        Sell         Time        Price<br \/>\nMem        Order      Order       order        Diffe       diffe<br \/>\nName       time       Qty         rate         rence       rence<br \/>\nDINESH<br \/>\nKUMAR<br \/>\nINGHAN-\n<\/p>\n<pre>SIA &amp;CO.  13:12:44   15000      757.70        0:00:01     0.00\nASHOK\nKUMAR\nPODDAR   14:05:35    25000     751.90         0:00:00     0.00\n \n\n<\/pre>\n<p>5.8 Dinesh Kumar Singhania &amp; Co. and Ashok Kumar Poddar are said to be connected or associated entities of Ketan Parekh group. The Broker in their reply to show cause notice stated that there is not even an allegation in the Enquiry Report that they were aware of any linkage between the said Brokers and Ketan Parekh Group. In their written submission dated September 28, 2006, they stated that there was no way for any broker knowing even the identity of the counter-party broker whose order may be matched by the automated screen based trading system. I also find that the said &#8216;KP brokers&#8217; have been declared defaulters by CSE and SEBI had subsequently cancelled the registrations of these brokers as published vide Press Release dated October 22, 2001 and July 30, 2002. It is further noted that the said cancellation is subsequent to the transaction in issue. I observe that the Broker executed one trade with Dinesh Kumar Singhania &amp; Co. and Anr. one trade with Ashok Kumar Poddar on November 05, 1999. These two trades were executed in a period of almost six months and this could be a mere coincidence. Considering that there was no other evidence supporting their relationship with the above KP Group entities, I am of the view that benefit of doubt can be given to the Broker in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.9 I observe that the Broker never disputed the said 41 instances of synchronized trades. They submitted before me that they had no intention to get the transaction artificially matched since they had traded on the screen based system where the automated trading server matches purchase orders and sale orders without human intervention. The Broker also submitted before me that their transactions were a minuscule percentage of total trades in shares of Ranbaxy on the relevant dates and could have had no impact on price. They also pleaded that the Enquiry Officer was wrong in computing the percentage of the transactions against the total transactions by them in Ranbaxy. I am of the view that synchronized deals are only possible if the trades are put in the system with prior understanding. In such cases prices and quantities have been negotiated outside the system and orders had been executed simultaneously. In most of the cases, the gap between the orders is zero seconds i.e. the orders were punched in before the other order came to the screen of the exchange system. Such order placing may raise serious doubts on the genuineness of the trades. However, in the instant case, I have noted that in respect of 34 trades, the transactions were matched neither repeatedly nor regularly with the same Broker. Considering the liquidity of the scrip and that there is no sufficient corroborative evidence to hold that the said matching was for a manipulative intent, I am inclined to give a benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.10 However, out of the above 41 trades, 7 trades of the Broker had been matched with CSE Brokers, Dalmia Securities Ltd. and Narain Prasad Dalmia. They were having the same address as that of the Broker. Therefore, there is a greater preponderance that these trades were not being genuine. Even in his submission, the Broker has indirectly stated that these are not negotiated deals. In view of this, it is not clear how the Broker has placed the order exactly at the same time with the same quantity and price with that of the counter party Brokers whose address was the same with that of the Broker. The pre-determined synchronization of trades tampers with price discovery mechanism of stock exchange and also hampers transparency. These trades also create artificial volumes and false market. Even though the volumes were minuscule, it cannot be a logical reason to let them go without any punitive action. In view of this, I find that these acts of Broker are in violation of the Regulation 7 read with the clause A (3) and (4) of Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule II of SEBI Stock Brokers Regulations and Regulation 4(b) of PFUTP Regulations.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.12 Keeping in view of all facts and circumstances of the case as also submissions of the Broker, I am of the view that a penalty of &#8216;censure&#8217; is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0 ORDER <\/p>\n<p>6.1 Having considered all aspects of this case, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me in terms of Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation 13(4) of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations, 2002, hereby impose a penalty of &#8216;censure&#8217; on the Broker, Shyam Sundar Dalmia.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Securities Appellate Tribunal Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 Bench: V Chopra ORDER V.K. Chopra, Member 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Mr Shyam Sundar Dalmia, is a Broker of Calcutta Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Broker&#8221;) with SEBI Registration No INB030077614. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to in short [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-13T01:51:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-13T01:51:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2302,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-13T01:51:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-13T01:51:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-13T01:51:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007"},"wordCount":2302,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007","name":"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-13T01:51:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sebi-vs-shyam-sundar-dalmia-on-19-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sebi vs Shyam Sundar Dalmia on 19 January, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21909","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}