In one instance, though, SAT has upheld a SEBI order, but has substantially reduced the quantum of penalty.
The three-member SAT bench, in most cases, has professed to be in agreement with the appellants -- the intermediaries who have appealed against the SEBI orders. All these orders had been issued last week by SAT.
In the case of Indesec Securities and Finance, SAT has said the SEBI warning does not stand since the main charge of synchronised trading with another market entity has failed.
The charge against Indesec was that it had entered into synchronised deals in the purchase of shares of Global Trust Bank, and SEBI warned Indesec that future lapses would invite stringent action.
Incidentally, SEBI had let off the other brokerage, which was said to be a party to the synchronised trading. Indesec appealed saying it would lose 90 per cent of its business from foreign clients due to this warning, and SAT overruled the SEBI orders.
The SEBI order itself had said that there had been no price manipulation. "We also find that when the main charge of synchronisation has failed, there is no question of expecting the broker to have been alerted to the possibility of market manipulation because of the manner and pricing of the transactions," SAT said, adding:"It is self-evident that on a charge of synchronisation, it is not possible to punish one side while exonerating the other."
A second case involves Nath Seeds and the relevant dates for conversion of optionally fully convertible debentures where SEBI asked the stock exchanges to take action against the company and take the relevant date as per its own interpretation under the rules.
While setting aside the SEBI order, SAT has said, "We are also guided by the fact that as many as three stock exchanges had interpreted the guidelines in the normal course in favour of the appellants and had not raised any objection while listing these shares after conversion on the stock exchanges. This only goes on to show that the plain grammatical meaning of the guidelines is also in favour of the appellants."
It also said: "The restructuring and amalgamation of companies should not therefore be held hostage to the post-facto interpretations of these guidelines by the regulatory authorities."
The order also categorically states that the Tribunal is in "favour of upholding the interpretation adopted by the appellants".
In the case of the promoters and directors of Aftek Infosys -- who had been barred last year from accessing the capital markets for alleged manipulation of the company's shares in collusion with Ketan Parekh entities - the SAT order has clearly stated there is no case against them.
The judgment has also pointed out that SEBI should not have relied on a letter written by IDBI--- which had provided the funds -- to bolster its case and said that a deeper probe by SEBI "into the circumstances of IDBI's letter ... could have thrown more light on this entire issue".
The fourth case pertains to SMIFS Capital and associated companies, and Ajay Kayan and his group of companies, where SAT has agreed with the SEBI order but has reduced the penalty from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 10,000.