sebi:CO/14/SMD/04/2003
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Certificate of registration suspended for six months
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 13(2)
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 28
Parties
- M/s Samkit Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited (SEBI Registration no. INB 021050332)
Holding
The certificate of registration of M/s Samkit Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited was suspended for a period of six months for violating the Code of Conduct (clauses A(5) and B(1) of Schedule II read with regulation 7), rule 4(b) of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992, and various SEBI circulars, including those on segregation of client funds, cross deals, delayed delivery from pool accounts, and dealing with unregistered sub-brokers.
Full text
and directives issued by ASE from time to time. 2.1The enquiry officer issued a show cause notice dated July 26, 2002 to the said broker under regulation 28 (2) of the said regulations. After considering the reply of the said broker and submissions made on its behalf during personal hearing before him, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dated October 31, 2002.
no.SMD/SED/CIR/93/23321 dated 18.11.93. v. Regarding indulging in cross deals and negotiated deals, the Enquiry Officer has found that the said broker has violated SEBI circular no.SMDRP/POLICY/CIR-32/99 dated 14.9.99 in respect of 11 instances as cited in the Enquiry Report. vi. The enquiry officer found that the said broker has dealt with M/s.Vora Consultancy who is not registered with SEBI as a sub-broker in violation of SEBI Circular SMD/POLICY/3-97 dated 31st March, 1997.
the relevant time the broking business was new to it and the rules were violated in ignorance and not intentionally. Further, it had stopped doing cross deals and segregated the clients account and its own account from the day they were pointed out as violations. Regarding the delay in delivery of securities from pool account in case of Chandrakant Patel, it has submitted that unsigned authorization letter of the client was submitted due to sheer mistake. It has enclosed the signed copy of the purported authorization letter of Chandrakant Patel dated 24.4.2000. It has pleaded that the penalty of suspension would be very harsh and requested to take a lenient view. It had also sought personal hearing in the matter.
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:CO/14/SMD/04/2003. 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.