New Delhi / Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd vice-chairman and joint managing director Shankar Sharma’s appeal against an order by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that maintained a one-year ban on him trading in equities.

Legal setback: Sharma said the Supreme Court has dismissed his appeal because ‘our review against SAT order is pending at SAT, and a matter cannot be in appeal in two forums’. Abhijit Bhatlekar / Mint

A Supreme Court bench headed by justice S.H. Kapadia dismissed the petition by Sharma, who also filed a review petition before SAT in November against the order by the tribunal, which hears appeals against orders passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).

On 28 October, SAT upheld the market regulator’s order restraining Sharma from trading in equities for a year.

Sharma said in an email to ‘Mint’ that his appeal had been dismissed by the Supreme Court because “our review against SAT order is pending at SAT, and a matter cannot be in appeal in two forums".

“An appeal cannot lie at two courts simultaneously," added Sharma, who filed the appeal in the Supreme Court before the review petition at SAT.

However, according to K.K. Rai, a senior Delhi high court lawyer, the review petition before SAT was no longer relevant following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Sharma’s appeal.

In a 13 February order, Sebi barred Sharma from stock market trading for a year for allegedly violating market norms in 2001 by using fictitious trading accounts. Sharma challenged Sebi’s order at SAT and got a stay against it in March.

SAT on 4 November gave Sharma four weeks’ time to appeal in the Supreme Court against the Sebi order.

“Our order of October 28 2009 (dismissing Sharma’s appeal against Sebi) will not be given effect to for a period of four weeks from today to enable the applicant to file an appeal in the Supreme Court," SAT had said.

SAT on 28 October ruled that it was “satisfied that the appellant executed fictitious trades by taking opposite (trading) positions, which is not permissible".

It also said the trades were “manipulative inasmuch as the buy and sell orders were placed at almost the same time".