sebi:AK/AO-106/2014
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 10
Parties
- Master Share & Stock Brokers Ltd.
Holding
The Noticee was held to have violated Clause A(2) of the Code of Conduct under Schedule II read with Regulation 15 of the Brokers Sub-Brokers Regulations and SEBI Circular no. SMDRP/POLICY/CIR-49/2001 dated October 22, 2001, by allotting 4 trading terminals at 3 locations to its ultimate clients, and a monetary penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 was imposed.
Full text
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication order in the matter of Master Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. Page 2 of 18 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Brokers Sub‐Brokers Regulations") and violated SEBI Circular no. SMDRP/POLICY/CIR‐49/2001 dated October 22, 2001.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication order in the matter of Master Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. Page 3 of 18 Tankian Wali, Ferozpur City, b) Krishna Carrier Builders, Near LIC Office, Phillaur and c) 307 B Model Town Extension, Ludhiana; c) That on receipt of SCN to clarify the matter and bring on record the true facts, they had requested LSESL to confirm the aforesaid fact and issue them a certificate in this regard. That LSESL after verifying their records had issued a certificate confirming that the terminals were installed after completion of necessary formalities in this regard. The said certificate was annexed to the reply; d) That rent had been paid by them for use of the premises where trading terminals were installed; hence, the same premises were used as their office. Thus, they were in compliance with SEBI Circular no. SMDRP/POLICY/CIR‐49/2001 dated October 22, 2001; e) That as regards the terminal allotted to Shri Sanjay Kakkar, who was their business associate, the Noticee has stated that the reasoning for making bold and sweeping allegation that "....the kind of service Shri Kakkar is rendering to the Noticee was of sub‐broking (although Shri Kakkar is unregistered sub‐ broker)" is not clear. The Noticee has submitted that: i) They themselves are the registere
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication order in the matter of Master Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. Page 4 of 18 foregoing they were in compliance with the SEBI Circular no. SMDRP/POLICY/CIR‐49/2001 dated October 22, 2001. f) That all the dealings of clients viz. Pay in and Pay out of funds and securities were directly carried out by LSESL. The "Member Client Agreement (MCA)" was executed with the Noticee and KYC documents were under their control and record. Further the client wise limit and also the permission whether to execute the order of a particular client or not was decided by their "Internal Risk Management and Surveillance System" and also considering other factors like individual client's risk profile etc. Hence, it is erroneous and incomprehensible to allege that "....the terminals are being used and managed by the clients". At the most, it may be a case that the clients had direct access to the trading terminal. Further, that the aforesaid facility was extended in order to provide better facilities to them so that they can take proper and informed decision before placing any order on the trading terminal of the exchange; g) Further, that not the brokerage, but, professional charges were paid to Shri Rajesh Kakkar for the consulting services rendered b
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:AK/AO-106/2014. 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.