0% found this document useful (0 votes)
50 views3 pages

1791 2020 4 1501 38300 Judgement 19-Sep-2022

Uploaded by

Pratha Jain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
50 views3 pages

1791 2020 4 1501 38300 Judgement 19-Sep-2022

Uploaded by

Pratha Jain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.563 of 2020

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ABHIJIT RAJAN ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

V. Ramasubramanian

1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India has come up with the

above appeal, challenging an Order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal,

by which the Order of its Whole Time Member (for short “WTM”)

directing the respondent to disgorge the amount of unlawful gains made

by him, was set aside.

2. We have heard Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing

1
through successfully, the parent company of GIPL namely, Gammon

India Ltd., could have gone for bankruptcy.

33. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in thinking that the

respondent had no motive or intention to make undeserved gains by

encashing on the unpublished price sensitive information that he

possessed.

34. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal found that the closing price of

shares rose, after the disclosure of the information. This shows that

the unpublished price sensitive information was such that it was

likely to be more beneficial to the shareholders, after the disclosure

was made. Any person desirous of indulging in insider trading, would

have waited till the information went public, to sell his holdings. The

respondent did not do this, obviously on account of a pressing

necessity.

35. We agree with the contention of Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned

senior counsel for the appellant, that the allegation of insider trading

cannot be measured in terms of the value of the contracts terminated

and the percentage of shares sold and that the theory of

25
45. In view of our answers to Question Nos. 1 and 2, we are of the view

that there is no necessity to go into Question No.3. Our answers to

Question Nos. 1 and 2 are sufficient to hold that the impugned order of

the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

…..…………....................J.
(Indira Banerjee)

.…..………......................J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022

32

You might also like