sebi:IVD-ID5/CT-ARSSL/AO/DRK-AKS/EAD3-415/81-2013
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Adjudication proceedings disposed of - violation not established, no penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
Regulations
- Reg. 7
Parties
- Anand Rathi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd.
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that violation of Clause A (2) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers as specified under Regulation 7 of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992 was difficult to establish against Anand Rathi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. and accordingly disposed of the adjudication proceedings without imposing penalty under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 2. I was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer under Section 15 I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’), read with Rule 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adjudication Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15 HB of the SEBI Act the violation of Clause A (2) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers as specified under Regulation 7 of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers ) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Stock Broker Regulations’) alleged to have been committed by Anand Rathi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘noticee’) and the same was communicated vide proceedings of the Whole Time Member appointing Adjudicating Officer dated 12.04.2013.
Page 3 of 6 • The dealer was unaware of the intention of the client and acted as an intermediary. • When the noticee had asked for an explanation from its client about the alleged synchronized trades, the client vide its letter dated 06.02.2013 had submitted that he was expecting funds from his resources but unfortunately he did not received it on time. Therefore, he sold the shares and purchased the same in his relative account. As the fund was delayed the client had to clear his position at the stock broker’s place but he was not ready to sell his investment.
Page 4 of 6 • Clients have traded in two other scrips during the investigation period through the noticee. • The client finally sold the scrip on July 24, 2009. • Ms. Nitaben Patel’s account with the noticee is in inactive mode. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
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:IVD-ID5/CT-ARSSL/AO/DRK-AKS/EAD3-415/81-2013. 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.