sebi:PB/AO-10/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Charges proved; penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
- Reg. 4(2)(e)
- Reg. 4(2)(g)
- Reg. 4(2)(b)
Parties
- N M Lohia & Co.
Holding
The Noticee violated regulations 3, 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e), (g), (n) and (o) of PFUTP Regulations and clauses A(1)-(4) and B(4)(a) of the Stock Brokers Code of Conduct by executing cross/synchronized deals creating artificial volume and price in PSL, and was held liable for monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 under section 15HA and Rs.50,000 under section 15HB, totaling Rs.1,00,000.
Full text
Page 2 of 21 significant price movement in the scrip which lacked presence of any sort of fundamentals. 2. It was alleged that one of the brokers, N M Lohia & Co., Member, CSE (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee”/“NML”) violated the provisions of regulations 3, 4 (1), 4 (2) (a), (b), (e), (g), (n) and (o) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and clauses A (1), (2), (3),(4) and B (4) (a) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers as specified in Schedule II under Regulation 7 of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Brokers Regulations”).
Page 3 of 21 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY 6. Show Cause Notice No. EAD-5/VSS/SS/136468/2008 dated August 29, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee under rule 4(1) of the Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty be not imposed under sections 15HA and 15 HB of SEBI Act for the alleged violation specified in the said SCN.
Page 4 of 21 secrecy. Therefore we have no direct influence in the trading of the scrip. Thus we would like to state that we have not violated any regulations, circular, directives of SEBI & also CSEA. We had tried to comply all the requirements of SEBI. We pray before you that no action that might be initiated against us. Sir, as you are aware that our firm is not operational for more than two years, we do not have any source of income therefore you are requested to take a lenient view in the above 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:PB/AO-10/2011. 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.