sebi:15366

SEBI · SEBI · 2004-03-08 · Madhukar, Whole Time Member

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Warning imposed on sub-broker

Provisions invoked

• s. 19

Regulations

• Reg. 13(4)
• Reg. 5

Parties

• M/s. V.P. Securities And Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Holding

The sub-broker M/s. V.P. Securities And Investment Pvt. Ltd. was found guilty of one procedural violation — failing to inform the exchange about the location of its branches where terminals were provided — and a warning was imposed, directing it to adhere to the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992, Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

Full text

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 M/s. V.P. Securities And Investment Pvt. Ltd. is a sub broker having SEBI Registration No. INS010765936 (hereinafter referred to as the sub-broker), affiliated to M/s SKSE Securities Ltd., Member of The Stock Exchange, Mumbai, having SEBI registration No. INB011076032. 1.2 Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) conducted an inspection of the books of accounts and other documents of sub-broker for the period of year 2002-03 and observed certain irregularities allegedly committed by sub-broker. 2.0 ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS 2.1 In view of the above, SEBI vide order dated March 08, 2004 appointed an Enquiry Officer under Regulation 5 of SEBI (Procedure for holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing penalty) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Enquiry Regulations) to enquire into the irregularities observed during the inspection of books of accounts of the sub broker. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the Enquiry in terms of the Enquiry Regulations submitted his Enquiry Report dated November 22, 2004 and recommended a minor penalty of warning against the sub- broker. 2.2 A copy of the said Enquiry Report was forwarded to the sub-broker along with a Show Cause Notice dated December 23, 2004 advising it to show cause as to why appropriate penalty including the penalty as recommended by the Enquiry Officer should not be imposed on it. 2.3 The sub-broker however did not reply to the show cause notice and therefore I am

3.0 CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS 3.1 I have carefully considered the findings of inspection, Enquiry report and the

3.4 On a careful perusal of the charges, findings of inspection and enquiry and the submissions made by the sub-broker, I have no substantial reason to defer with the

Source: SecMarx — sebi:15366. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.