sebi:EAD/EAD-5/PG/92514/2007
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Ex-parte penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15B
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 15(1)
- Reg. 26
- Reg. 26(v)
- Reg. 15(1)(b)
Parties
- Shri Pravinbhai Parshatambhai Dudhat, proprietor, M/s Kumar Investments
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that PPD, proprietor of Kumar Investments, violated confirmation-memo, unique client code, client registration/agreement and cash-dealing requirements and imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Sections 15B, 15F(b) and 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 14 were communicated to PPD vide SEBI letter no. MIRSD/DPS-I/Post- Insp./RRM/Sub Brk/33050/2004 dated February 07, 2005. PPD was also advised to submit his comments on the findings of inspection within 14 days of receipt of the letter. As no response was received from PPD, I was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer, vide SEBI order dated November 02, 2005 to inquire into and adjudge the alleged violations by PPD, proprietor of KI. 2.0 NOTICE/ REPLY/ PERSONAL HEARING: 2.1 Accordingly, I issued a show cause notice dated December 02, 2005 to PPD under Rule 4 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) whereby he was asked to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for the violations mentioned in the said notice. PPD was also advised to make his submissions, if any, within 14 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. PPD was further advised to note that in case he failed to reply within the stipulated period, it would be presumed that he had no submissions / explanation in this regard and that the matter would be further proceeded with on the basis of the material available on record on an ex-parte basis. As no proof of delivery was received, a fresh show cause notice was issued on February 21, 2006. An unsigned A.D. card was received by my office on 06.03.2006 which again is not an adequate proof of delivery. A fresh show cause notice date
Page 3 of 14 with supporting documents. The notice also mentioned that if no one appeared before me on the said date, the inquiry would be conducted ex- parte and the matter would be decided on the basis of documents available on record. The notice of hearing was delivered to PPD on May 09, 2007 as per the signed registered A.D. card received. On the said date i.e. May 14, 2007 neither PPD nor any representative appeared before me.
Page 4 of 14 Reply During the course of inspection, PPD submitted that his clients do not insist for the confirmation memos and whenever requested he issued the same to the clients. In the statement recorded on October 26, 2004 by the inspection team, PPD submitted that he is issuing bills to clients who ask for confirmation and bills.
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:EAD/EAD-5/PG/92514/2007. 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.