sebi:MO/87/IVD/09/04

SEBI · SEBI · 2000-03-08 · G A K BATRA, 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

Penalty imposed: suspension of certificate of registration of Amgis Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for four months

Provisions invoked

• s. 19

Regulations

• Reg. 13(4)
• Reg. 13(2)
• Reg. 23

Parties

• M/s. Amgis Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Holding

Amgis Holdings Pvt. Ltd. was held guilty of violating SEBI circular dated September 14, 1999 by executing off-the-floor/negotiated transactions in VSL shares outside the exchange mechanism, and a penalty of suspension of its certificate of registration for four months was imposed. A lenient view was taken regarding the alleged violation of the March 14, 1995 circular on reporting off-floor transactions.

Full text

Home » Enforcement » Orders » Orders of Chairman/Members Enforcement Enforcement▼ ORDER UNDER REGULATION 13(4) OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING ENQUIRY BY ENQUIRY OFFICER AND IMPOSING PENALTY) REGULATIONS, 2002. AGAINST M/S. AMGIS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., IN THE MATTER OF M/s. VAKRANGEE SOFTWARES LTD.

Amgis was asked to show cause as to why an appropriate penalty should not be imposed by SEBI in terms of Regulation 13(2) of SEBI (Proced Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations, 2002.  REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

v)                  That the transaction between the clients of Amgis was in violation of SCR Act, and that Amgis was not responsible for the same s were between the clients who executed the trades between themselves. It was also said that the role of Amgis was that of providi parties to the transaction. vi)                 That there was an indication of bias to the case as Amgis was outside the authority of the circulars mentioned in the order. b)          None of the transactions mentioned in the show cause notice were carried out by Amgis as a broker. It cannot be punished for the v Regulations since the transactions did not prove in any manner that they had acted as broker. c)      Amgis submitted that it has not acted as a broker in respect of the alleged transaction and therefore has not issued any contract note. A let Tanul Trading asking for confirmation of its non-involvement in the trades, as their broker, was produced as an annexure to their written submiss d)      Amgis sought similar confirmation from Ami Impex and SJ Impex and the letters sent by them were produced as Annexures. In the said lett been stated that Amgis had not acted as a broker to the off-market transactions of theirs.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:MO/87/IVD/09/04. 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.