sebi:OFL/SM/AO/DRK/AS/EAD-3/101/09-04/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee found in violation ex-parte and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed under Sections 15HA and 15A of the SEBI Act, 1992
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 12
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 8(1)(a)
Parties
- Shri Sushil Mukharjee
Holding
The noticee violated Regulations 3, 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(g), 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 and Section 11(C)(2) read with Sections 11(C)(3) and 11(C)(5) of the SEBI Act, 1992, and was held liable to a consolidated penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 under Sections 15HA and 15A of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 11 matching transactions among themselves. It appeared from the trading pattern of each of the stock brokers with their clients that simultaneous buy and sell orders of same quantity and same price in the scrip have been placed either by the clients or in the name of the clients by the stock broker themselves.
Page 3 of 11 Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice Relating to Securities Markets) Regulation, 2003 and section 11(C)(2) read with Section 11(C)(3) and Section 11(C)(5) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The SCN stated that the reply shall reach within 15 days from date of receipt of the notice, failing which it shall be presumed that the noticee has no reply to submit and the matter shall be proceeded on the basis of material available on record. However, the aforesaid show cause notice sent through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due was returned undelivered with the remark ‘not known’. Thereafter a letter dated June 24, 2009 was sent to his Stock Broker ACL. to serve the aforesaid SCN to the noticee, however the Stock Broker vide its letter dated July 07, 2009 replied that it was “unable to deliver” the SCN to the noticee. In the meanwhile, during one of the personal hearings of the Stock Broker held in Eastern Regional Office of Securities and Exchange Board of India at Kolkata on October 13, 2009, it was impressed upon the Stock Broker the importance of serving the SCN to its clients for further proceedings. Accordingly, vide another letter dated November 05, 2009 the Stock Broker ACL. was once again advised to serve/hand deliver the SCN to the noticee. In response to the said letter the Stock Broker ACL. vide its letter dated November 18, 2009 informed that it made several attempts to serve the aforesaid show cause notice to the noticee, however it was u
Page 4 of 11 notice and the hearing notice under Rule 7 of the Rules on the premises of the noticee and the report of affixture of the same is on record. However the noticee failed to attend the personal hearing without furnishing any reason.
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:OFL/SM/AO/DRK/AS/EAD-3/101/09-04/2010. 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.