SEBI-ORDERS ADJUDICATING OFFICER
BM/AO‐ 09/2012 dtd. 08-Feb-2012
Adjudication Order against Shri. Ashraf Ramtoola in the matter of GE Capital Transportation Financial Service Limited
In the matter of GE Capital Transportation Financial Service Limited (GCL)
Noticee: Shri. Ashraf Ramtoola
Related Entities: GE Capital Mauritius Investment Company Ltd (GECMIC), MAVI Investment Fund Ltd (MAVI), International Management (Mauritius) Ltd (IMM), Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. K Radhakrishnan, Mr. Suresh Krishnan, Mr. Geoff Culbert, Mr. Matt Cribbins, Mr. Sandeep Beri, Luchmee Arunachalam, Ashraf, Noufail Manjoo, Mr. Stephanie Ban, GE Commercial Finance, Asia, GE Commercial
Finance, India, GCL, GE Capital Service India, GE India, J. M Finanacial Consultants Pvt. Ltd, J M
Finanacial, John Flannery, Anita Gidumal, Stewart & Mackertich Wealth Management Limited,
Case in brief:
Investigation for the period June 20, 2008 to July 23, 2008.
Price of the scrip went up from Rs. 47.60 on Ju... + Read more
In the matter of GE Capital Transportation Financial Service Limited (GCL)
Noticee: Shri. Ashraf Ramtoola
Related Entities: GE Capital Mauritius Investment Company Ltd (GECMIC), MAVI Investment Fund Ltd (MAVI), International Management (Mauritius) Ltd (IMM), Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. K Radhakrishnan, Mr. Suresh Krishnan, Mr. Geoff Culbert, Mr. Matt Cribbins, Mr. Sandeep Beri, Luchmee Arunachalam, Ashraf, Noufail Manjoo, Mr. Stephanie Ban, GE Commercial Finance, Asia, GE Commercial
Finance, India, GCL, GE Capital Service India, GE India, J. M Finanacial Consultants Pvt. Ltd, J M
Finanacial, John Flannery, Anita Gidumal, Stewart & Mackertich Wealth Management Limited,
Case in brief:
Investigation for the period June 20, 2008 to July 23, 2008.
Price of the scrip went up from Rs. 47.60 on June 20, 2008 to Rs. 105.40 on July 21, 2008.
GCL made a corporate announcement regarding the proposed delisting of its shares from BSE, received from its Mauritius based promoter GE Capital Mauritius Investment Company Ltd (GECMIC)
GECMIC was holding approximately 77.33% of the total share capital of GCL and offered to acquire
remaining public shareholding.
Shri. Ashraf Ramtoola was the director of GE Capital Mauritius Investment Company Ltd (GECMIC).
On 25th June 2008, before the date of intimation to BSE for voluntary delisting offer, MAVI had bought 89,297 shares and sold the same after the corporate announcement date.
MAVI was connected to the Noticee as he was also a director of International Management (Mauritius) Ltd (IMM), which was Company Secretary of GECMIC and also the Company Secretary of MAVI and
provided administrative services to it.
The Noticee was earlier a director of MAVI from June 05, 2005 to February 24, 2006.
GCL provided to SEBI the phone number of Noticee in Mauritius as +230 2129800, which matched with one of the letter head of MAVI.
It was alleged that Noticee being an insider and connected to MAVI had communicated the unpublished price sensitive information to MAVI who traded when in possession of the information.
Also the Noticee made wrong submissions to GCL on January 30, 2009 by stating that he has no relation whatsoever with MAVI.
It was noted that the information was received by the Noticee at 17.05 hrs on June 25, 2008.
MAVI traded in the scrip on June 25, 2008 from 10.00 hrs to 15.17 hrs i.e. much before the information was received by the Noticee.
There was no any specific direct documentary evidence on record to show that MAVI received the price sensitive information regarding the proposed voluntary delisting offer by GECMIC for GCL shares before the information was made public on 27/06/2008.
Hence on benefit of doubt to the Noticee, violation of Regulation of PIT does not stand established for
want of conclusive evidence. Therefore the charges against the noticee doesn’t stands established.
Order:
Proceedings were disposed off with no penalty on Shri. Ashraf Ramtoola.
Case were the noticee received the price sensitive information in evening at 5.05pm and the connected entity had traded subsequently on the day of receiving the price sensitive information However connected entity had executed trades much before the information received and on short of conclusive ev... + Read more
Case were the noticee received the price sensitive information in evening at 5.05pm and the connected entity had traded subsequently on the day of receiving the price sensitive information However connected entity had executed trades much before the information received and on short of conclusive evidences against the noticee, the benefit of doubt is given to noticee.
... + Read more