JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. These Civil Appeals arise out of common impugned Order dated 07.01.2009 passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “SAT”).

2. Since the questions of law and issues which arise to be dealt with in both the above captioned Civil Appeals are similar and the matters are distinct only in their respective facts and events, these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1742 of 2009 is a Private Limited Company which was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 15.04.1997. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 2009 was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 02.06.1997.

4. An investigation was carried out by Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’ for short) in the matter of purchase and sale of scrip and manipulation of share prices of M/s Shonkh Technology International Ltd. (‘STIL’ for the sake of convenience), a Company in which both the appellants had previously held shares. On noticing unusual price movement in the shares of STIL, SEBI conducted an investigation into the buying, selling and dealings in the shares of the Companies under the provisions of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations’). Investigations revealed that one M/s Shreejee Yatayat India Limited (for short ‘SYIL’) a listed company had acquired the entire Undertaking of STIL and in turn SYIL had allotted its shares to the shareholders of STIL. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1742 of 2009 was allotted 10,00,000 shares of SYIL while the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5833 of 2009 was allotted 1,43,000 shares. Having taken over the business activities of STIL, SYIL changed its name to STIL with effect from 27.07.2000.

5. Investigations further revealed that the appellants had transferred the shares of STIL to a Company under the name and style of Sai Mangal Investrade Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘SMIPL’). Similarly, entities like Classic Credit Limited, Goldfish Computers Ltd. and Luminant Investment Pvt. Ltd. had also received shares of STIL from various entities which had been allotted shares by SYIL. SMIPL and the other entities referred to above were all controlled and managed by a person named, Ketan Parekh, who had rigged the securities market in the years 2000 and 2001.

6. By an Order dated 12.12.2003 passed by SEBI, Ketan Parekh and the companies controlled by him had been prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities in any manner directly or indirectly for a period of fourteen years. That Order was upheld by SAT on 14.07.2006 and the appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed.

7. In view of the aforesaid investigations, SEBI initiated proceedings against several entities including the appellants herein. By a separate Order dated 16.10.2007, SEBI found that large quantities of shares of STIL were made available to entities associated with Ketan Parekh during the period between October, 2000 and April, 2001 and that facilitated them to create artificial volumes in the said scrip in the securities market. SEBI also found that the entities associated with Ketan Parekh had sold a large number of shares of STIL in the securities market in a synchronized manner with a view to create an artificial market in the said shares. SEBI came to the conclusion that the appellants and other ent