WTM/SR/IVD/ID 2/ 43 /03/2015

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, MUMBAI

CORAM: S. RAMAN, WHOLE TIME MEMBER
ORDER
Under Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation
11(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003 in respect of Rikhav Securities Ltd. (PAN-AADCR3067Q) in the matter of IPO of
Vaswani Industries Limited.

1.

Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI"), vide an interim Order dated
July 11, 2011, inter alia, prohibited Rikhav Securities Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Rikhav
Securities"), who acted as a sub- syndicate member in the Initial Public Offer (IPO) of the company,
Vaswani Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'VIL'), from acting as a syndicate member/subsyndicate member for any future issues till further directions. The said Order was passed on the basis of
the prima facie findings that Rikhav Securities had inflated the bid book to a large extent in the IPO of
VIL and thus appeared to have induced the investors in the Retail Individual Investor (RII) category to
subscribe to the issue.

2.

Before dealing with the specific charges alleged against Rikhav Securities, the factual background in the
context of which charges have been levelled against it, may be mentioned. VIL came out with an IPO for
100 lac equity shares of face value of ` 10/- each at a premium of ` 39/- per share. The IPO of VIL was
a book-built issue and bidding started on April 29, 2011 and closed on May 3, 2011. The level of
subscription for Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs), on closure of bids, was at 0.16 times, and
oversubscription levels of Non-institutional Investors (NIIs) and RIIs were at 11.29 times and 6.82
times respectively. Based on these figures the oversubscription in the issue was calculated at 4.16 times.
However, after taking into consideration, the cheques returned, withdrawals and technical rejections, the
oversubscription level fell to 1.28 times. The issue price was fixed at `49/- and the securities issued
through the IPO were allotted to investors on May 10, 2011.
2.1 SEBI received several complaints from applicants pointing out large scale withdrawals/rejections in the
issue, alleging that certain applications were submitted only to artificially inflate the subscriptions in
QIB/NII/RII categories with a view to attract and mislead investors. Based on such complaints from
applicants alleging deliberate huge withdrawals and rejections after the closure of the IPO of VIL, SEBI,
vide Order dated May 26, 2011, inter alia directed detailed investigations in the matter. While the
investigations were in progress, SEBI passed the aforesaid interim order dated July 11, 2011 inter alia

Page 1 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

against Rikhav Securities, who was a sub-syndicate member in respect of the IPO of VIL. The said
Order also directed VIL to give withdrawal option to all the investors who were allotted shares in the NII
and RII categories for such number of shares by which the allotment ratio was impacted due to
withdrawals/rejections in the aforesaid categories.
2.2 The aforesaid interim Order dated July 11, 2011 was challenged before the Honble Securities Appellate
Tribunal (SAT) by Rikhav Securities. The Honble SAT, vide its Order dated November 16, 2011,
observed that SEBI Order qua Rikhav Securities was an ad-interim Order and directed SEBI to hear
Rikhav Securities within the next two weeks. Accordingly, Rikhav Securities was granted an opportunity
of personal hearing before SEBI and the aforesaid interim Order passed on July 11, 2011 against Rikhav
Securities was confirmed by SEBI vide its Order dated January 11, 2012 till further orders in the matter.
Rikhav Securities again filed an appeal before the SAT against the said confirmatory Order dated January
11, 2012 which was disposed of by SAT vide its Order dated August 14, 2012 with a direction to
complete the investigation and issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the appellant by December 13, 2012.
2.3

Subsequent to the aforesaid Order of the Hon'ble SAT, a SCN dated December 13, 2012 was issued to
Rikhav Securities on the basis of findings made in the investigation calling upon them to show cause as
to why appropriate action including directions restraining them from buying, selling or dealing in
securities for a specified period should not be issued against them for the violation of the provisions of
Section 12A(a), (b), and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulation 3(b) and 3(d) , 4(1) and 4(2) (a) and
(b) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "PFUTP Regulations") and Clause 6(a) of Schedule XI of
SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as
"ICDR Regulations").

3.

The main allegations levelled against Rikhav Securities in the SCN are stated below:
i.

Rikhav Securities was one of the largest brokers/sub-syndicate members with respect to bidding in
both NII and RII categories, and contributed to about 82% of the issue size. Withdrawals/rejections
from its terminal were as high as 71% of the total issue size. The entire bidding (i.e. 100%) under the
NII category and 77% of the bidding under the RII category, from the terminal of Rikhav Securities
were withdrawn/rejected.

ii.

Rikhav Securities had acted in concert with its group companies namely AHL Investment
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Rikhav Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (presently known as 4G Solutions P. Ltd.) and

Page 2 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

placed large bids on behalf of them through its terminal under the NII category in order to inflate
the bid book; to give a misleading appearance of bidding in the issue and to contribute towards
discovering the price at the highest price band of `49/- per share. It is further alleged that the entire
bids placed on behalf of the group companies were subsequently withdrawn.
iii.

With respect to 232 bids i.e. 230 bids in the RII category for 903360 shares (9.03% of total issue size)
and 2 bids in NII category for 8,16,240 shares (8.16% of total issue size) placed through Rikhav
Securities, the cheques submitted along with the bids were not banked. Further, it was observed that
the maximum number of such applications were placed on the last day of the bidding process during
the final hours. It was therefore alleged that these bids were placed by Rikhav Securities only with a
design to inflate the bid book to trap innocent investors in a manner that they would not be in a
position to withdraw their bids and thus minimum subscription to the issue was ensured.

iv.

Rikhav Securities, through its NBFC arm namely Total Holdings and Finvest Pvt. Ltd. had financed
187 clients of the RII category, without any formal agreement with the said clients. Of these 187
clients, 75 clients withdrew their applications subsequently. Similarly, Rikhav Securities' client under
NII category, namely Manba Investments and Securities Pvt. Ltd. had also financed 70 clients, and
the bids on behalf of the said clients were placed through the terminal of Rikhav Securities,
contributing to 2,85,600 shares. It is alleged that stop payment instructions were issued by all the said
clients without giving any plausible explanation for the withdrawal of their applications.

v.

Rikhav Securities had placed large bids on behalf of its clients and then withdrew most of them. In
view of this, Rikhav Securities is alleged to have artificially inflated the bid book and created a
misleading appearance of apparently healthy subscription of the issue. It is also alleged that this
modus operandi was adopted in order to generate retail investors' interest in the scrip.

4.

In response to the SCN, Rikhav Securities filed its reply vide letters dated January 15, 2013 and February
04, 2013. Subsequently, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to Rikhav Securities on June 13,
2013. During the course of the hearing, Rikhav Securities was directed to submit the details of applications
bid by it during final four hours along with the details of withdrawals. Only a part of the information was
submitted by the entity vide his letter dated June 13, 2013. The remaining part of the information was
submitted by Rikhav Securities at the subsequent personal hearing, as detailed in the following paragraphs.
4.1 Subsequent to this, it came to my notice, that enquiry proceedings were also pending against Rikhav
Securities in the IPO of VIL for similar violations. In view of this, the instant matter was kept in
abeyance till the filing of Report by the Designated Authority (DA)as both the proceedings arise out of

Page 3 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

similar set of facts and the provisions violated are also similar. The DA filed his report on July 11,
2014 and the post enquiry SCN was issued on August 5, 2014. The entity filed its written submissions
dated December 9, 2014 to the Report filed by DA, vide its letter dated December 10, 2014. Rikhav
Securities also submitted the aforesaid copies of withdrawal letters of all the applicants (mentioned in
Paragraph No. 4 above) along with the written submissions.
4.2 In view of the additional submissions and the documents submitted by Rikhav Securities, an
opportunity for hearing was once again granted to the entity in the present proceeding on December
10, 2014, which was postponed to December 29, 2014 on the request made by the entity. The entity
reiterated the submissions already made in their earlier reply dated June 13, 2013 and requested time to
file additional reply and supporting documents.
4.3 Rikhav Securities vide letter dated January 1, 2015 and January 12, 2015 filed additional submissions
and also furnished some documents supporting its contentions.
5. In its aforementioned letters and during the personal hearing held on June 13, 2013 as well as December
29, 2014, Rikhav Securities inter alia made the following submissions
5.1 Submissions made by the entity on June 13, 2013i.

The role of Rikhav Securities, as a sub-syndicate member is limited and falls between the role of
Syndicate member and sub-broker in the whole chain of IPO process. It was binding on Rikhav
Securities under ICDR Regulations to bid the application as early as possible and is required to carry
out the instructions of the applicant(s) scrupulously.

ii.

Other than the bids of two group companies of Rikhav Securities namely, AHL Investment
Consultants Private Ltd. and Rikhav Brokers Private Ltd., the remaining six bids under the NII
category were received through the sub -brokers namely Nikita Manisha Shah and Rahul, who were in
no way connected to Rikhav Securities. The contribution of the aforesaid group companies of Rikhav
Securities amounted to 1.95% of the total applications bid in the IPO i.e. 4.18 crores, which is a very
negligible percentage to induce other investors to apply in the IPO. The group companies withdrew
their bids as there was no QIB subscription on first two days of the issue and that it remained
undersubscribed even after the closure of the IPO. During the IPO of VIL, there was another good
investment opportunity in the issue of Power Finance Ltd. In addition to this, negative news in the
market and in various websites regarding the large withdrawals by investors etc. also contributed to the
withdrawal of applications by the group companies.

Page 4 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

iii.

In respect of the allegation regarding the failure to bank the cheques, submitted along with the bids,
Rikhav Securities contended that under RII category, 230 applications with cheques were received
during 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on the last day of bidding. As a routine practice, sub brokers who collect
applications from the day issue opens, lodge the applications on the last day of the closing of the IPO
and applicants put the closing date of the issue on the cheque. Thus, bidding was done during the last
hours. Incidentally, since investors wanted to withdraw the applications, which were bid but not
banked, they were instructed to give withdrawal letter for the same. This is a prevalent procedure and
standard practice adopted by every sub-syndicate member for withdrawal of applications and Rikhav
Securities also followed the same practice. Cheques were not banked since all the 230 applicants (RII)
had requested in writing to Rikhav Securities for withdrawal of bids. Further, with regard to the nonsubmission of copies of withdrawal letters along with copies of cheques and application forms of the
remaining 69 clients, it is submitted that those records were available with the sub brokers who deal
with the applicants and it was never insisted by SEBI during investigation that they should lodge all the
withdrawal letters.

iv.

No connection was established between the issuer company-VIL, BRLM-Ashika Capital Ltd., NII
applicants (Manba Group and other 4 individual applicants) and Rikhav Securities. Investigation by
SEBI has given clean chit to the company in its Order dated July 11, 2011. If there were manipulation,
the company should be the sole beneficiary.

v.

At Para 14 of the SCN, it was stated that only 26 bids were submitted by Rikhav Securities during last
two hours and that under no circumstances, bids in last two hours influence others. The bids put in
the last 2 hours of bidding could not inflate the bid book or lure others to apply. Further, according to
the details of timing of placement of bids, only 26 bids were submitted by Rikhav Securities during last
two hours which indicated contradiction in the investigation by SEBI.

vi.

In the instant case, as soon as NII and RII applicants discovered that QIB portion was heavily under
subscribed, they rushed to withdraw. Thus, they were not misled to apply but were rather correctly led
to withdraw.

vii.

In the NII category, five sub -syndicate members, other than Rikhav Securities, namely Karvy Stock
Broking Ltd., Ashika Stock Broking Ltd., Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd., Amit Jasani and Matalia Stock
Broking Ltd. had 100% bids resulting into invalid applications. Similarly, comparing the ratio of
invalid applications by Rikhav Securities in the RII category, Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. had large

Page 5 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

number of invalid applications in absolute numbers and KIFS Securities Pvt. Ltd. had higher
percentage of invalid applications.
viii.

Withdrawal of the 75 applications (out of total 187 applications), financed by Rikhav Securities
through its NBFC arm namely Total Holdings and Finvest Pvt. Ltd. were to the extent of about 40%
only and withdrawals were at the option and decision of the respective applicants. The company had
received about 7500 bids. Therefore, 187 bids could not inflate the order book in any meaningful way.

ix.

It is a well settled law that when there is a charge of fraud, mens rea/intention is material. Under the
facts and circumstances of the given case, no intention is evident.

x.

Alleged contravention of Clause 6 (a) of Schedule XI of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009 is the
obligation of BRLM/Syndicate member. It is a statutory obligation and not transferable and hence
Rikhav Securities, as a sub- syndicate member, ought not to have been alleged to have contravened the
same.

5.2 Submissions made by Rikhav Securities during the hearing held on December 29, 2014i.

Furnished the copies of withdrawal letters of all the 230 applicants (the cheques of whom were
allegedly not banked by Rikhav Securities), who had placed bids under the retail category,

ii.

SEBI has not allowed inspection of certain documents,

iii.

SEBI denied opportunity to cross examine various applicants who bid through Rikhav Securities
and their statements were recorded during investigation,

iv.

The two group companies of Rikhav Securities were having sufficient sources of funds at the
relevant time and the same was communicated along with documentary evidence in the course of
investigation.

v.

Noticee has no prerogative to either accept or reject the application, if it is duly filled.

vi.

No connection established between the Noticee and,

the issuer company,

Merchant Bankers,

Page 6 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

vii.

Syndicate members,

Other sub-syndicate members,

Client groups.
As soon as the NII and RIIs learnt that the QIB portion in the IPO of Vaswani Industries Ltd.
was undersubscribed (only 8,00,040 shares were subscribed under QIB category against 50,00,000
shares reserved for them in IPO), they rushed to withdraw their applications. This is a common
trend in primary market, hence no fault can be attributed to Rikhav Securities.

5.3 In its written submissions dated December 9, 2014 and reply, vide letters dated January 1, 2015 and
January 12, 2015, Rikhav Securities inter alia made the following additional submissions:

i. "We were being appointed as sub syndicate members (SSM) and used to enter into agreement with Syndicate
Member (SM)
ii. The applications were even withdrawn from the Book Running Lead Manager (BRLM), viz. Ashika Capital,
even though they were also Syndicate Member in the said IPO.
iii. The applications filed through us were genuine and bonafide. Withdrawal of applications were made in the interest
of Investors /Clients.
iv. A copy of the bank statements of AHL & RBPL have been provided.
v. As regards application made by the group companies viz. Rikhav Brokers Pvt. Ltd and AHL investment
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. it is submitted that the size of application amounted to only 1.95% of the total application
received in the IPO of VIL and it is very miniscule percentage of applications to induce other investors to apply for
the shares in the IPO of VIL. In these companies only directors were common and not shareholders. The said
group companies whose applications were bid through us had enough funds at the time of bidding.
vi. They were only collecting agents for the SM and their role is merely to enter the bid details on the terminals wherein
the connectivity is provided by the stock exchange.

Page 7 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

vii. Regulation 28(3) & 102 read with Schedule XI of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as
ICDR Regulations ) allows RII category of investors to revise their bids and it is his right to withdraw the
application as and when he would like to.
viii. SSM has a ministerial role in the entire IPO operations and when other agencies have been let off, it is difficult to
comprehend as to why we are being targeted.
ix. We have neither been provided with copy of the complaints received by SEBI nor provided with an opportunity to
cross examine them despite repeatedly being sought by us.
x. The allegation that the bidding done by us in the last two hours have inflated the book is completely erroneous
allegation. At the outset we state that in most of the IPOs majority of bidding is done in the last few hours.
xi. As regards the adjudicating proceedings carried out for other entities in the scrip, the learned AO has held that
bids of Noticees which were made only on the last day of IPO that too after 1.30 PM cannot influence other
investors to bid in the said IPO. Further, para 24, 25 and 26 the Learned Adjudicating Officer has narrated the
grounds and justification to arrive at a conclusion that the withdrawal of the bids by the Noticee therein cannot be
considered to have placed in order to create misleading appearance of bids in the IPO by any
act/practices/device/artifice and therefore, no contravention of provisions of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations
is proved against them.
xii. Submitted that in most of the IPOs the allotment is always done at the highest price.
xiii. In the IPO of VIL withdrawals took place at large through all SSM. The details of such withdrawal through
other SSM is given.
xiv. In NII category other than Noticeee, other 5 Sub Synidicate members viz. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd., Ashika
Stock Broking Ltd., Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd, Amit Jasani and Matalia Stock broking Ltd had 100% bids
resulting into invalid applications. Further on an overall basis in NII category, 93% of the bids were invalid
applications. So there was a pattern of invalid applications in NII category in the IPO of VIL.
xv. Similarly in RII category, in comparision to Noticees 943 invalid application for 37, 80,720 shares out of 1221
bids for 48,76,680 share (77.53%), 1361 application for 45,89,760 shares were invalid. Similarly, 281 bids

Page 8 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

for 9,97,560 shares (85.50%) were invalid out of 326 bids for 11,66,880 shares bided by KIFS Securities Pvt.
Ltd (KIFS) and 191 bids for 7,56,840 shares (78.11) were invalid out of 243 bids for 9,69,000 shares bided
by Shri Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. So comparing ratio of Noticees invalid applications in RII category,
KIFS and Shri Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had higher percentage of invalid applications.
xvi. The Sub Syndicate member or their sub-agents are not required to obtain any certificate of registration with
SEBI or any other authorities. In fact Sub-syndicate member is appointed by way of a Private arrangement
/agreement between the Syndicate and the Sub-syndicate member.
xvii. As and when the withdrawals were taken place same was in the knowledge of SM/Ashika Capital and it is
quite surprising to know despite being overall in charge of the issue process, they did not take any corrective steps.
xviii. SEBI has taken action against the entity for each of the activity that they have been carrying and not debarred all
the operations of the entity for violations. In this regard, we would like to bring to your kind notice that Almondz
was found guilty in two IPOs simultaneously, then also it was debarred from taking new assignments in the area
of merchant banking only and not across their other area of operations.
xix. As per inspection report in respect of Rikhav Securities, there were no major discrepancies except few minor
observations in Know your Client (KYC) forms. We submitted our reply to said inspection and pursuant we have
not received any observation letter from SEBI.
xx. Further, it is SEBI own case that each activity of the intermediary should be separated by a Chinese wall and this
aspect is usually verified by SEBI in its inspection of the intermediaries."
Consideration of Issues and Findings
6.

I have considered the SCN issued by SEBI; the replies filed by Rikhav Securities along with the
submissions made by its authorized representative during the course of the personal hearing before me;
and other relevant materials available on record.
6.1. It is observed that the subscription level in the IPO of VIL declined from 4.16 times at the closure of the
issue to 1.28 times after accounting for the withdrawals/rejections. Maximum withdrawals/rejections had
taken place in the NII category for which the subscription levels fell from 11.29 times to 0.84 times and
for RIIs from 6.82 times to 1.35 times. This indicates that there was a sudden withdrawal/rejection of the

Page 9 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

applications from certain terminals through which bids were placed. It is also noted that there was no
specific news in the market to prompt such a large number of sudden withdrawals/rejections.
6.2. In this particular factual situation of the case, the issue under consideration is that whether the bidding of

applications by Rikhav Securities on behalf of its applicants/investors including its own group
companies and subsequent withdrawal thereof, were misleading in nature and were intended to
artificially inflate the bid book or/and to create an interest for other investors/public to subscribe in
the IPO of VIL. The basis for the aforesaid allegation against Rikhav Securities is mainly the following
factors such as,

Large scale bidding and withdrawals from the terminal of Rikhav Securities,

Placing of bids under NII Category on behalf of group companies and subsequent withdrawals,

"Not Banking" of cheques received along with the bids,

Financing and controlling of bids.

6.3. Before dealing with the aforesaid factors in seriatim, the relevant legal provisions, the contravention
of which have been alleged in this case may be reproduced hereunder for reference purpose:-

SEBI Act, 1992

Prohibition of manipulative and deceptive devices, insider trading and substantial acquisition
of securities or control.
12A. No person shall directly or indirectly
(a) use or employ, in connection with the issue, purchase or sale of any securities listed or proposed to be listed on a
recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of this
Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder;
(b) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with issue or dealing in securities which are listed or
proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange;
(c) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person, in
connection with the issue, dealing in securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange, in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder;
PFUTP Regulations, 2003
3. Prohibition of certain dealings in securities
No person shall directly or indirectly

Page 10 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

(b) use or employ, in connection with issue, purchase or sale of any security listed or proposed to be listed in a
recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of the
Act or the rules or the regulations made there under;
(d) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person
in connection with any dealing in or issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock
exchange in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and the regulations made there under.
4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in a fraudulent or an unfair trade
practice in securities.
(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if it involves fraud and may
include all or any of the following, namely:
(a) indulging in an act which creates false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market;
(b) dealing in a security not intended to effect transfer of beneficial ownership but intended to operate only as a device
to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the price of such security for wrongful gain or avoidance of loss;
SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009
Schedule XI

(6) Appointment of stock brokers as bidding/collection centres.

(a) The book runner(s)/syndicate members shall appoint stock brokers who are members of the recognised stock
exchange and registered with the Board, for the purpose of accepting bids, applications and placing orders with the
issuer and ensure that the stock brokers so appointed are financially capable of honouring their commitments arising
out of defaults of their clients/investors, if any;
Large Scale Bidding and Withdrawals from the Terminal of Rikhav Securities
6.4.

It is alleged in the SCN that Rikhav Securities was one of the largest brokers with respect to total bidding
in both NII and RII categories in the IPO of VIL and the percentage of withdrawals/rejections from its
terminal was significantly higher than that of the other major brokers/sub-syndicate members to the issue.

6.4.1 From the SCN, it is observed that the day-wise pattern of bidding, (from the opening of the IPO on April
29, 2011 till closing on May 3, 2011), percentage of valid bids and percentage of invalid bids from the
terminal of Rikhav Securities were as under:

Page 11 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Table
BID DATE

29/04/2011

CATEG
ORY

Total

% of total
bidding of
Rikhav to the
total bids of
the day

NII

2326320

24.59%

RII

Total

2326320

Shares
in valid
bids

% of valid
bids as %
to total
bids by the
broker on
the day

shares in
valid bids
as % to
total bids
of the day

Shares
rejected
/withdr
awn

% of
invalid
shares to
total bid
shares by
the
broker

% of
Invalid
bids to
the
total
bids of
the day
in the
IPO

0.00%

0.00%

2326320

100

24.59%
-

24.59%

0.00%

0.00%

2326320

100

24.59

1020240

100

32.37

97920

NII

1020240

32.37%

RII

265320

8.42%

167400

63.09%

5.31%

1285560

40.79%

167400

13.02%

5.31%

RII

4611360

48.75%

928560

20.14%

3.22%

NII

2/5/2011
Total

3/5/2011
Total

4611360

48.75%

928560

20.14%

36.91

3.11

1118160

86.98

35.48

3682800

79.86
-

12.76

3.22%

3682800

79.86

12.76

Total
8223240

a)

1095960

7127280

From the above, as borne out from the SCN, I note that on the first day of the issue i.e. on April 29,
2011, Rikhav Securities contributed to 24.59% of the total bidding of the day, and all the bids were
placed in the NII category, which is 23.26% of the entire issue size. All these bids were rejected/
withdrawn post closure of bidding.

b) On the second day, bids for 12,85,560 shares (inclusive of one NII application for 10,20,240 shares) were
placed through Rikhav Securities, out of which, bids for 11,18,160 shares (86.98%) were
rejected/withdrawn. It is pertinent to note that all these bids were placed at the maximum price band of
`49/- on all the days of subscription.
c) On the third day, bids for 46,11,360 shares were placed through Rikhav Securities, out of which, bids for
36,82,800 shares (79.86%) were withdrawn and all the bids were placed in the RII category.
6.4.2 It is noted that 24.74% of total withdrawals/rejections of bids in the issue of VIL are from the terminal of
Rikhav Securities (as compared to the total withdrawals/rejections in the IPO).
6.4.3 Rikhav Securities, in its replies, contended that compared to the ratio of its invalid applications in the RII
category, other sub-syndicate members had an even larger number of invalid applications both in absolute
numbers as well as percentage of invalid applications. In this regard, it is noted that in respect of the other
sub- syndicate members, their group companies had not placed bids in the IPO through them. Further,

Page 12 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

when the withdrawals/rejections of NII and RII categories are taken together, Rikhav Securities is the
largest contributor to the withdrawals in the IPO i.e. 71,27,280 shares amounting to 24.74% of the total
shares withdrawn/rejected in the IPO. Out of total 82,23,240 shares bid through the terminal of Rikhav
Securities, 71,27,280 shares were withdrawn/rejected from its terminal and this constituted 86.67% of
shares withdrawn/rejected from its terminal. It is noted that on all three days of the issue, the
contribution of Rikhav Securities to the bids were significantly high.
6.4.4 Under these facts and circumstances, it is observed that the percentage of withdrawals/rejections from the
terminal of Rikhav Securities is significantly higher than that of the other major brokers/ sub-syndicate
members in the IPO, as discussed above.
Placing of Bids under NII category on behalf of group companies and subsequent withdrawals
6.5.

Another allegation in the SCN is that Rikhav Securities had placed large bids through its terminal under the
NII category on behalf of its group companies viz. AHL Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Rikhav
Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in order to inflate the bid book; to give a misleading appearance of bidding in the issue
and also to contribute towards discovering the price at the highest price band of `49/- per share.

6.5.1 The day-wise bidding details through Rikhav Securities indicate that on first day of bidding i.e. on April
29, 2011 under NII category, 24.59% of the total bids for the day were placed through Rikhav Securities
which were fully withdrawn/invalid. Further, on second day of bidding i.e. on May 2, 2011, the total bids
through Rikhav Securities contributed to 40.79% of total bids for the day, out of which 86.98% were
withdrawn/invalid and on May 3, 2011, total bids placed through Rikhav Securities were 48.75% of the
total bids for the day out of which 79.86% were withdrawn/invalid.
6.5.2 It is further observed that under the NII category, the total bids placed through the terminal of Rikhav
Securities were for 33,46,560 shares on 2 days of bidding i.e. on 29.4.2011 and on 2.5.2011 by eight
NII/HNI clients. The said eight NII/HNI clients included two associate/group companies of Rikhav
Securities viz., Rikhav Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (Rikhav Brokers), presently known as 4G IT Solutions India
(P) Ltd. and AHL Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (AHL Investment). Other NII/HNI clients of
Rikhav Securities were, Ms. Reeta Jain, Ms. Indira Jain, Manba Investments & Securities Pvt. Ltd.,
Manba Broking Services. Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Shahrukhkhan Sharfarazkhan and Mr. Vivek Agarwal. The details
of the bids placed by the said entities has already been provided in the SCN.
6.5.3 It is observed from the SCN that the group companies of Rikhav Securities, viz. Rikhav Brokers and
AHL Investments had common directors as that of Rikhav Securities. On the first day of issue, Rikhav

Page 13 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Brokers Pvt. Ltd. had placed a bid at 10:27:34 a.m. at a price of `49/- per share for 6,12,240 shares
under NII/HNI category. This was the first bid placed on that day i.e the opening day of the issue.
Subsequent to this, another group company of Rikhav Securities viz. AHL Investments placed bid for
2,04,000 shares at `49/-per share at 15:35:52 on the same day. The total contribution of the bids placed
by the group companies of Rikhav Securities, viz. Rikhav Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and AHL Investments to the
issue size was 8,16,240 shares i.e 8.16% of the issue size on the first day of bidding. All the cheques in
respect of all the said entities were returned subsequently.
6.5.4 From the SCN, it is further observed that on the first day of issue, subsequent bids in the NII category
were placed on behalf of Manba Investments and Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Manba Broking Services Pvt.
Ltd. (hereinafter referred together as "Manba Group") through the terminal of Rikhav Securities. The
combined bids of Manba group for 8,16,240 shares through the terminal of Rikhav Securities,
contributed to 8.16% of the total issue size and alleged to have inflated the bid book to that extent. It is
noted that the Manba Group, prior to their cheques being forwarded to the escrow banker, placed their
withdrawal request with Rikhav Securities vide its letters dated May 4, 2011 stating that "due to some reason
we do not want to apply for the same application and hence we request you not to do banking of the said application..".
Therefore, the cheques issued by the Manba group were not banked. I find this explanation not
convincing. The total bids of all the entities who had placed bids through the terminal of Rikhav
Securities under the NII category on the first day of bidding formed 23.26% of the total issue size.
Further, it is observed that every single bid placed in the NII category through the terminal of Rikhav
Securities was withdrawn/rejected either due to the reason "Cheque returned" or due to the reason "not
banked", i.e. there was 100% withdrawals of bids through the terminal of Rikhav Securities under NII
category.
6.5.5 Rikhav Securities, in its reply dated January 15, 2013 submitted that no connection was established
between Rikhav Securities and Manba group/other four individual applicants in the NII category. In this
regard, it is noted from the SCN that in addition to the IPO financing of clients done by Rikhav
Securities' NBFC arm, (viz. Total Holdings), Manba Investment and Securities Pvt. Ltd. also financed 70
clients, who had placed the bids through the terminal of Rikhav Securities, which together contributed to
2,85,600 shares. It is noteworthy that each and everyone of these applications, "stop payment" instructions
were issued by the applicants.
6.5.6 I further note that Rikhav Securities in its reply dated January 15, 2013 has submitted that its Director, Mr.
Hitesh Lakhani, in his statement recorded before SEBI on June 15, 2011 had provided reasons for the
100% withdrawal of the applications in the NII category. It was stated,

Page 14 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Secondary market falls about 4%,

From market information/gossip etc. we came to know that this will be listed on heavy discount,

Muthoot finance which was listed on May 6 was given good rating also goes below issue price during the market
time,

Announcement of the Power Finance Ltd. IPO came & price had been declared so it was attractive than
Vaswani IPO"

6.5.7 It is observed that there was no major adverse market information/news about VIL as contended by
Rikhav Securities. As regards the influence of extraneous factors on the investors' decision to withdraw
their applications, it is noted that IPO of VIL closed on May 3, 2011, whereas the date of issue of
Muthoot Finance Ltd. was on April 18, 2011 and the listing was on May 6, 2011 and the Further Public
Offer (FPO) of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. was scheduled subsequently on May 10, 2011, after the
closure of the issue of VIL. However, huge withdrawals in the IPO of VIL were witnessed immediately
upon the date of closure of the issue of VIL i.e. May 3, 2011, well before the occurrence of aforesaid
events cited by Rikhav Securities. Hence, there appears to be no connection between the aforesaid events
cited by Rikhav Securities. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the reasons given by Rikhav
Securities and its directors are not convincing.
6.5.8 Another major contention put forth by Rikhav Securities in its reply dated January 15, 2013 (Page 4, Para 7)
is that "as soon as NIIs/RIIs discovered that QIB portion was heavily undersubscribed, they rushed to withdraw". In
this context, it is pertinent to note that the sole QIB bid by Adharshila Venture Capital Fund Ltd. was
received on the last day of bidding (on 3/5/2011 at 12:37:16 hrs), hence, the under-subscription of QIB
portion was known to all investors when the bids were placed by them on the first two days and also on
the last day. Hence, I am unable to accept the reasoning given by Rikhav Securities for withdrawal of bids
of its group companies that response from QIBs was not encouraging and there was negative news in the
market etc. as the records show that the issue garnered good amount of subscription.
6.5.9 The facts and circumstances mentioned above coupled with the very act of placing the first and the
subsequent bids on behalf of its own group companies by Rikhav Securities and subsequent withdrawal of all
the applications bid by the group companies on the closure of issue, clearly indicate that the same was done
with full prior intention to give a misleading appearance of bidding in the issue without actual inflow of funds
from those applicants and without any real intention of investing in the IPO.
6.5.10 It is further observed that during the course of hearing held on June 13, 2013, Rikhav Securities stated that
their group companies (AHL Investments and Rikhav Brokers) had enough funds in their accounts to

Page 15 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

honor the bid amount. However, they did not furnish any documents such as bank account statements to
substantiate their claim during the course of investigation and also during the course of hearing held on June
13, 2013. Subsequently, Rikhav Securities, vide letter dated December 10, 2014 and January 1, 2015,
(subsequent to the hearing held on December 29, 2014) inter alia furnished the following documents with
regard to the availability of funds in the accounts of the said group companies at the time of bidding:

Copy of the certificate issued by Bank of India certifying that cheque for an amount of `1,99,97,950/got debited from the account of AHL Investments on May 12, 2011. The said cheque was stated to
have been issued by AHL Investments for the subscribing to the IPO of Sanghvi Forging and
Engineering Ltd. (Sanghvi Forging), which had opened on May 4, 2011.
Copy of demat statement of AHL Investment showing credit of shares of Sanghvi Forging,
Copy of ledger confirmation of M/s Shreeji Darshan Enterprises for the period from April, 01, 2011 to
March 31, 2011,
Copies of the "Statement of available fund position" during the period from April 29, 2011 to May 06, 2011
of Rikhav Brokers and AHL Investments.
Copies of bank account statements of Rikhav Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and AHL Investments P. Ltd.,
Copies of "Balance Confirmation Certificate" issued by the respective banks to Rikhav Brokers and AHL
Investments,
Copy of Ledger Confirmation of Rikhav Brokers for the period from March 23, 2012 to March 31,
2012 showing the details of the account of Rikhav Brokers, as standing in the book of accounts of

Total Holdings and Finvest Pvt. Limited (Total Holdings),

Copy of "Schedule of Terms" document executed between Total Holdings and Rikhav Brokers in
pursuance of the provisions of the master loan agreement dated February 10, 2010 executed between
Rikhav Brokers and Total Holdings (pursuant to the ICD of Rs. 5 crores from Rikhav Brokers toTotal
Holdings).
6.5.11 On perusal of the said documents and bank account statements, following are observed:

Even though the aforesaid "statement of available fund position" of Rikhav Brokers furnished by Rikhav
Securities, shows that they had total funds of more than `5,40,48,016/- during April 29, 2011 to
May 06, 2011, the bank account statements of Rikhav Brokers, however, indicate that the funds
available in the bank accounts of Rikhav Brokers were only `1,86,48,016/-. The remaining amount
included surplus Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) of `3,54,00,000/- placed with their group company

Page 16 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

and NBFC arm, Total Holdings. In view of this, it is evident that Rikhav Securities was not having
the required funds during the period of making application to IPO.

In respect of the availability of funds in the bank account of AHL Investments, it is observed that
they placed the bid through cheque drawn on Bank of India (Account no. 0050271100000014),
amounting to `99,96,000/-. As per the bank statements furnished by AHL Investments, on May 05,
2011 it only had a balance of `2,88,056/-. Further, as per the HDFC bank account statements of
AHL Investments, `1 crore was received on May 06, 2011 through RTGS from Shreeji Darshan
Enterprises. The same was immediately debited and the closing balance in the said account was
`36,199/-. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that as on May 06, 2011, AHL Investment did
not have sufficient funds in their accounts during the period of making application to IPO.

It is pertinent to note that as per the SEBI circular CFD/DIL/3/2010 dated April 22, 2010, which
stipulates the indicative timelines for the various activities in the issue process, provides " Collecting banks

to commence clearing of payment instruments on T+3 day [T=issue closure date]". In the instant matter the
entity placing the bids did not have sufficient funds in their accounts till May 6, 2011.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that the group companies of Rikhav
Securities did not have sufficient funds in their account during the time of bidding and also after placing
the bids, i.e. till May 06, 2011.

6.5.12 In the facts and circumstances, it is observed that placing large bids by the group companies of Rikhav
Securities through its own terminal under the NII category at the highest price of `49/- and subsequently
withdrawing the applications/bids so placed coupled with the fact of non-availability of sufficient funds in
the respective account at the time of bidding lead to the inescapable conclusion that the bids were placed
with the pre-meditated fashion with an intention to artificially inflate the bid book and create a misleading
appearance of bidding in the IPO of VIL. The aforesaid activities of Rikhav Securities were clearly intended
to generate adequate interest of RIIs in the IPO.
6.5.13 The bids placed by NII and QIBs apparently indicated good response to the IPO and became a benchmark
for the pricing of the issue. In this regard, it is noted that the bids were placed by Rikhav Securities at the
highest price of `49/- and had withdrawn the bids within a span of two days after closure of the issue. It
cannot be a mere coincidence that every single one of the NII clients including its own group companies who
had placed bids through Rikhav Securities should withdraw their bids on closure of the issue. It is observed
that the extent of subscription in any issue can be seen online on the exchange websites as well as the bidding

Page 17 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

terminals of the syndicate/sub-syndicate members. In this context, it is important to note Clause 12(g) of
Schedule XI of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009, which says that "the bidding terminals shall contain an on-line
graphical display of demand and bid prices updated at periodic intervals, not exceeding thirty minutes". This indicates that
Rikhav Securities along with its group companies, had placed these bids through its terminal in a concerted
manner solely with a view to project an exaggerated response to the issue. It is also clear that all along they
deliberately did this with a prior intention to withdraw the application.
"Not Banking" of Cheques received along with the Bids
6.6. I note from the SCN that Rikhav Securities did not bank cheques received from 232 clients (230 RII clients
and 2 NII clients of Manba group). Such applications, in respect of which cheques were not banked amount
to a total of 17,19,600 shares and form 17.2% of the issue size. In this context, it is noted that Rikhav
Securities, vide its reply letter dated January 15, 2013, stated that the aforesaid applications of 230 clients were
received by Rikhav Securities during 10 a.m. to 2.00 p.m on the last day of the bidding and hence bidding in
respect of those applications were done during the final hours. Further, it was also submitted by Rikhav
Securities that on the same day those 230 applicants wanted to withdraw the applications. It is seen that the
timing of placement of the bids of 230 clients of the RII category is as under:
Table III
Date
03-05-2011
03-05-2011
03-05-2011
03-05-2011

Bidding Time
14:00 to 15:00
15:00 to 16:00
16:00 to 17:00
17:00 to 18:00
Total

No. of RII applications

76
75
23
56
230

6.6.1 As seen from the above table, even the bids placed by 56 applicants during the closure of the bidding hours,
between 17:00 hrs 18:00 hours, were withdrawn vide letters on the same day. It is difficult to comprehend
why the applicants, whose bids were placed during the last one hour, had required Rikhav Securities to
withdraw their applications. Rikhav Securities in its reply vide letter dated January 15, 2013 submitted that a
sub-syndicate member is duty bound carry out the instruction of the clients immediately. However, the actions of Rikhav
Securities is contrary to their submissions as it is seen that they had placed 79 of the bids only during the last
two hours, as shown in the above table.
6.6.2 With regard to the allegation of "not banking" the cheques of 232 applicants/clients (230 RIIs and 2 NII/HNI
clients), Rikhav Securities stated that the cheques of the aforesaid 232 clients were not banked as all the 232
applicants/clients requested to hold back their cheques. However, it is observed that Rikhav Securities could
not furnish the copies of all the withdrawal letters of the aforesaid applicants/clients when asked to do so
during the course of investigation. As regards the non-submission of the same, Rikhav Securities, in its reply

Page 18 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

vide letter dated January 15, 2013 contended that those records were available with the sub-brokers who deal
with the applicants and it was never insisted by SEBI during investigation that it should lodge all the
withdrawal letters with SEBI. In this context, it is noted that during the course of investigation, SEBI asked
Rikhav Securities to clarify the reasons for not banking the cheques of the aforesaid 232 applicants/clients.
Rikhav Securities was also advised to provide the full details such as names, address, bank account numbers,
bank name, branch name, address etc. of the said applicants/clients, whose cheques were not banked. Mr.
Hitesh Lakhani, Director of Rikhav Securities, on behalf of Rikhav Securities stated that all the said
applicants/clients had requested for withdrawal of their applications. Mr. Hitesh Lakhani undertook that the
copies of the application forms and withdrawal letters submitted by the aforesaid 230 applicants/clients
would be submitted by December 3, 2012. It is observed that Mr. Hitesh Lakhani, vide letter dated
December 3, 2012 to SEBI, while stating that "we would like to furnish you the below mentioned documents
[withdrawal letters and application forms submitted by all the 232 applicants] as required by you for further
investigation", submitted only the withdrawal letters for 163 clients and no explanation has been given for nonsubmission of the remaining requisite documents in respect of other clients. However, later,

Rikhav

Securities, vide their letter dated December 10, 2014 furnished the copies of the withdrawal letters of all the
232 applicants, after being called for a hearing on December 10, 2014 (which was later postponed to
December 29, 2014).
6.6.3 Considering the facts that Rikhav Securities could produce the withdrawal letters, though after considerable
delay and in the absence of any other material on record to prove that "not banking" of the aforesaid cheques
in respect of the 232 applications were with the sole intention to inflate the bid book, I am inclined to give
benefit of doubt in respect of the said charge against Rikhav Securities.
Financing of Bids by the NBFC Arm of Rikhav Securities and Controlling of Bids by Rikhav
Securities
6.7. It is noted from the SCN that Rikhav Securities through its NBFC arm namely Total Holdings and Finvest
Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Total Holdings") had financed 187 clients belonging to the RII category
and these 187 clients had placed their bids through Rikhav Securities and their bids amounted to 7,62,960
shares, details of which are as follows:
Table IV
Status of retail bids

No of bids

No of shares bid

Amount financed(`)

Valid bids

112

4,56,960

2,23,91,040

Invalid/Withdrawn/rejected

75

3,06,000

1,49,94,000

187

7,62,960

3,73,85,040

bids
Total

Page 19 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Further, day-wise break-up of the above, is as under:

Bid Date

Total
No. of
No. of bids
shares

Withdrawals
No. of
No. of bids shares

Valid
No. of bids

No. of shares

36

146880

02-05-2011

50

204000

14

57120

03-05-2011

137

558960

61

248880

76

310080

Total

187

762960

75

306000

112

456960

6.7.1 From the above, it is observed that out of 187 applications financed by Total Holdings, 75 applications for
3,06,000 shares were withdrawn. Rikhav Securities, vide its reply letter dated January 15, 2013 submitted
that withdrawal of such 75 applications was only to the extent of about 40% of the total withdrawals from
the terminal of Rikhav Securities and withdrawals were at the option and decision of the respective
applicants. Further, it is stated that the NBFC provides finance to the investor by issuing cheques directly
to the Escrow Account in the IPO and takes two post-dated cheques from the applicants, one for the
repayment of the principal amount and the other for the payment of the interest. Further, when the client
sells the shares, Rikhav Securities, as a stock broker, has access to the demat account of the respective
client by way of the 'Specific Power of Attorney' executed by the client at the time of opening of the
account.
6.7.2 From the SCN, it is noted that the method as detailed above indicates that the demat accounts of the said
clients were under the control of Rikhav Securities as they held the Power of Attorney to operate the
account and through its NBFC arm, Rikhav Securities had control of funds through post dated cheques
of the clients. It is pertinent to note that Total Holdings did not enter into any formal agreement with its
clients for the said funding. It is observed that even though Rikhav Securities furnished the copies of
withdrawal letters sent by the aforesaid 75 applicants, they failed to submit the formal agreement entered
with its clients for the said funding by their NBFC arm, viz. Total Holdings. In view of all the above, it is
evident that the bids were placed in a concerted manner and Rikhav Securities had used the accounts of
the clients funded by their NBFC arm to place bids in the IPO and then subsequently withdraw the bids.
6.8. Subsequent to the personal hearing before me, Rikhav Securities, vide letter dated June 13, 2013, submitted
the details of the applications bid during last four hours of the closing date of the issue along with the details
of withdrawals thereof, from its terminal. Details of the same are reproduced below:
Table V
Total RII applications
Time on 03/05/2011

No. of applications bid during the

hour

Invalid/withdawan/rejected
applications out of the
applications bid during the hour

Page 20 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

From 2:07 pm to 2:54

386

302

From 3.06 pm to 3:59

395

274

From 4:10 pm to 4:55

213

204

From 5:02 pm to 5:58

158

140

1152

920

Total

6.8.1 An analysis of the above table indicates that out of the total 1229 bids placed through the terminal of
Rikhav Securities, 1152 applications were bid during the last four hours (i.e between 2:07pm and 05:58
pm). Interestingly, out of the said 1152 applications bid during the last four hours, 920 applications (80%)
were withdrawn. Similarly, out of the 158 bids placed during the last one hour of bidding, 140 were
withdrawn.
6.9. Further, in its reply, Rikhav Securities had also contended that it had a very limited role as a sub-syndicate
member and had essentially only a clerical role to play in the whole process of IPO. It had executed the
instructions of applicants/clients by placing and withdrawing bids. From the SCN, it is observed that in the
appointment letter dated January 17, 2011 of Rikhav Securities as a sub-syndicate member to the Book
Running Lead Manager, a specific clause states that Rikhav Securities would make good any defaults of its
clients/investors. In view of the onerous responsibility cast upon the sub-syndicate members, the aforesaid
contention put forth by Rikhav Securities is not tenable and I am of the view that Rikhav Securities' role in
the whole process of IPO is not mechanical or clerical as contended in its reply.
6.10. Further, with regard to the contention put forth by Rikhav Securities in respect of the requirement of mens
rea, it is observed that fraudulent or manipulative trade practices in securities market can be proved on the
basis of "preponderance of probability" and not "beyond reasonable doubt" as held by the Hon'ble Securities
Appellate Tribunal (SAT) in Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v A.O., SEBI, Mumbai, decided on January 5,
2010 and Prashant J. Patel, Mumbai v. SEBI, decided on August 17, 2010. The Hon'ble SAT further
observed that, proof of mens rea in manipulation cases need not be direct, but rather may be inferred from
circumstantial evidence and is generally based on a course of conduct showing an intentional interference
with the normal functioning of the securities market and not based on a solitary action.
6.10.1 It is noted that in the instant matter, the proof of manipulative intent is evident from the series of
activities of Rikhav Securities, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and disclose a clear manipulative
conduct, such as placing bids on behalf of Rikhav Securities' own group companies at highest price band
and then withdrawing/cancelling the entire bids under the NII category; arranging the finance and
controlling of bids placed by RII clients and subsequent withdrawal/rejection of a substantial portion of
the bids, etc. It is noted that in the IPO of VIL, the oversubscription level on closure of bids was initially

Page 21 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

at a level of 4.16 times, however, after taking into account the withdrawals and technical rejections, the
oversubscription level fell to 1.28 times. In these circumstances and applying the aforesaid principles, I am
of the view that all the charges against Rikhav Securities are established.
6.10.2 In the instant IPO, the inference of there being a good demand for the issue, which was drawn by the
investors was substantially negated by subsequent large-scale withdrawals and consequent drop in the
subscription level from 4.16 times to 1.28 times. Had the genuine investors been aware of the true extent
of the demand for the IPO, impending large-scale withdrawals and the consequent change in allotment
ratio, they would have most certainly reevaluated their investment decision, equipped with the correct
information. It is further noted from the available records, that on the listing date i.e. October 24, 2011,
the price of the scrip at BSE which was subscribed at a price of ` 49/- per share, opened at ` 33.45 and
closed at ` 17.75.
6.10.3 In order to protect the interests of investors who could have possibly been attracted by the apparent
excess subscriptions in the IPO of VIL, SEBI vide the interim Order dated July 11, 2011, inter alia,
directed the issuer company, VIL to give option for withdrawal to all investors who were allotted shares
in the NII and RII categories for such number of shares by which the allotment ratio was impacted due to
withdrawals/rejections in the aforesaid categories. In view of this, I have no hesitation to reject the
contention put forth by Rikhav Securities that SEBI had given a clean chit to the company in its Order
dated July 11, 2011. It is also noted that the Hon'ble SAT vide Order dated August 25, 2011 confirmed
the said SEBI Order to the extent of giving withdrawal option to the investors in the RII category. From
this, it is clear that the RIIs were lured into applying in the IPO, by the "good" response artificially created
by the entities including Rikhav Securities.

6.11. Rikhav Securities, during the hearing held on December 29, 2014 submitted that SEBI has not given
inspection of documents and has not allowed cross examination of various applicants who bid through
Rikhav Securities and their statements were recorded during investigation. Rikhav Securities also
requested for cross examination of the applicants who bid through Rikhav Securities. In this regard, it
is observed from the available records, that Rikhav Securities was granted inspection of documents on
November 07, 2014 and November 10, 2014 and all the materials relied upon by SEBI have been
provided to the entity. Further, in respect of the contention that opportunity to cross examine was not
given, it is observed that SEBI has not relied upon statements of any person or entity in the
proceedings against Rikhav Securities. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the issue of crossexamination does not arise in the instant matter. It is also noted that ample opportunities have been

Page 22 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

granted to Rikhav Securities to adduce evidence in the matter. Most of the relevant documents such as
the withdrawal letters of all the 230 applicants etc. have been furnished by Rikhav Securities only after
receipt of the SCN in respect of the enquiry proceedings initiated against Rikhav Securities.
6.12. The authorized representative of Rikhav Securities, during the personal hearing before me on June 13, 2013,
submitted a copy of Delhi High Court Ruling dated January 14, 2013 in SEBI Vs. A.P.L. Industries Ltd. I
have carefully analysed the judgment and I find that the facts of the instant matter are different from the
case quoted by Rikhav Securities. The issue under consideration in the referred case was refund of
subscription in an issue, which did not attract minimum subscription net of application withdrawals.
However, in the instant matter, the issue under consideration is whether Rikhav Securities as a sub-syndicate
member to the IPO of VIL, by its various acts and omissions, inflated the bid book; created misleading
appearance of vigorous bidding; contributed towards manipulating the price at the highest price band;
placed large orders on behalf of the applicants initially and then withdrew/cancelled the bids thereby
inducing innocent investors to subscribe to the issue. I am, therefore, of the view that the judgment quoted
by Rikhav Securities is not relevant for deciding the instant issue and the same is of no help to Rikhav
Securities.
7.

In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs, it is observed that the very act of placing
bids on the first day of the issue, by its own group companies were evidently instrumental in inflating the bid
book without actual inflow of funds from those applications and merely done with the sole intention to show
a good response to the IPO from the very beginning, before bids were placed by other entities. This is further
strengthened by the non-availability of funds in the accounts of their group companies viz. Rikhav Brokers and
AHL Investments. I am also of the view that it cannot be a mere coincidence that everyone of the NII clients
including its own group companies who had placed bids through Rikhav Securities chose to withdraw their
bids on closure of the issue. Further, it is found that Rikhav Securities had arranged finance through its NBFC
arm for 187 clients, who had placed bids under RII category, without any formal agreement, of which 75
applications were withdrawn subsequently. These methods adopted by Rikhav Securities were, undoubtedly
with the fraudulent intention to inflate the bid book and withdraw at the last minute was nothing but a tactic
to ensure that innocent investors did not withdraw their bids, thereby ensuring that the minimum subscription
to the issue was attained. We also have to take note of the fact that VIL was directed by the Hon'ble SAT to
offer withdrawal options to RIIs. In view of all the observations as detailed in the aforesaid Paragraph Nos.
6.4 to 6.8, I find that Rikhav Securities, a SEBI registered broker and sub-syndicate member to the public issue
of the Company VIL, placed large bids through its terminal on the first day of issue under NII category in
concert with its group companies to inflate the bid book; create misleading appearance of vigorous bidding;
and to contribute towards manipulating the price at the highest price band.

Page 23 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

7.1. Rikhav Securities has submitted that other sub-syndicate members, who also had 100% withdrawals from
their terminals in NII categories in the IPO of VIL, have not been punished by SEBI. The issue before

me is whether the bidding of applications by Rikhav Securities on behalf of its applicants/investors

including its own group companies and subsequent withdrawal thereof, were misleading in nature and
were intended to artificially inflate the bid book. The facts and circumstances as detailed in the forgoing
paragraphs clearly establish the manipulative conduct on the part of Rikhav Securities.
8.

In view of the aforesaid observations, I absolutely have no hesitation to say that Rikhav Securities has violated
the provisions of Section 12A (a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(b) and (d), Regulations
4(1) and 4(2)(a) and (b) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003.

8.1.

Ensuring fair play by all market participants is one of the main objectives of securities market regulation.
SEBI, as market regulator cannot be a mere spectator, it has to intervene to protect the integrity of securities
market and the interests of investors. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note the observations by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its judgment dated April 26, 2013 in N. Narayanan v. Adjudicating Officer SEBI

(Civil Appeal Nos.4112-4113 of 2013) that "SEBI, the market regulator, has to deal sternly with companies and
their Directors indulging in manipulative and deceptive devices, .. etc. or else they will be failing in their duty to
promote orderly and healthy growth of the Securities market. Economic offence, people of this country should know, is a serious
crime which, if not properly dealt with, as it should be, will affect not only countrys economic growth, but also slow the inflow of
foreign investment by genuine investors and also casts a slur on Indias securities market. Message should go that our country
will not tolerate market abuse and that we are governed by the Rule of Law. Fraud, deceit, artificiality, SEBI should
ensure, have no place in the securities market of this country and market security is our motto".
8.2.

Viewed in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the conduct of Rikhav
Securities was without doubt, detrimental to the safety and integrity of the securities market. The cogent

and convincing trail of events as detailed in the preceding paragraphs conclusively establish the charges
of manipulative and fraudulent activities on the part of Rikhav Securities. Such activities are not
expected from an intermediary registered with SEBI. If such activities from a SEBI registered
intermediary are allowed to continue, they will jeopardize and tarnish the image and pose a real threat
to the very integrity of our securities market. In order to ensure that such kind of activities, do not
continue or get repeated to the detriment of the investors, certain directions like restraining the entity from
acting as syndicate/sub-syndicate member become absolutely necessary.

Page 24 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

9.

It is also relevant to note that Rikhav Securities, failed to furnish the relevant documents crucial in determining
the case on merits such as the withdrawal letters and copies of application forms of the 232 applicants (as
detailed in Paragraph No. 6.6.2), the bank account statement and other documents showing funds available in
the bank account of their group companies, etc. during the course of investigation and also during the hearing
held on June 13, 2013. It was only during the second hearing granted to Rikhav Securities i.e. on December 29,
2014, that they furnished some of the relevant documents/material such as the withdrawal letters of the
aforesaid 232 applicants, the bank account statement and other documents of their group companies, etc.

10.

I note that SEBI, vide the Interim Order dated July 11, 2011 (later confirmed through the Confirmatory Order
on January 11, 2012), restrained Rikhav Securities from acting as a syndicate member/sub-syndicate member
for all forthcoming issues, till further orders in the matter and it has already undergone the restraint for a
period of approximately three years and seven months.

Order 11.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid mitigating factors, I, in exercise of
the powers conferred upon me by virtue of Section 19 read with Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act and
Regulation 11(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, restrain Rikhav Securities Ltd. from acting as a
syndicate/sub-syndicate member for a period of 4 years. The period of prohibition already undergone by
Rikhav Securities in terms of SEBI Interim Order dated July 11, 2011, shall be set-off from the period of
debarment as directed above.

12.

This Order shall come into force with immediate effect.

Place: Mumbai
Date: March 13 , 2015

S. RAMAN
WHOLE TIME MEMBER

Page 25 of 25

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz