sebi:PB/AO-20/2011
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
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Regulations
- Reg. 7
Parties
- TSPL
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that violations of non-collection of margins from 4 clients, non-maintenance of duplicates of contract notes, incomplete client agreements, delay in payment to 1 client and delay in delivery to 3 clients stood established and imposed a total monetary penalty of Rs 50,000 under sections 15F and 15HB of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 22 clients and (g) Delay in delivery of securities to clients. Therefore, it was alleged that TSPL had violated the provisions of clause B(1) 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’), and certain Circulars issued by SEBI and consequently, liable for monetary penalty under sections 15F and 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SEBI Act’).
Page 3 of 22 6. Subsequent to my appointment and in the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry in terms of rule 4(3) of the Rules, the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on February 03, 2011 at SEBI, Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata vide notice dated January 11, 2009. However, due to certain exigencies the hearing scheduled on February 03, 2011 was cancelled and rescheduled on February 14, 2011 at SEBI, Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata vide notice dated January 24, 2011. Mr. Lakhi Prasad Saraogi, Authorised Representative of the Noticee (hereinafter referred to as “AR”), appeared and reiterated the submissions made vide Noticee’s letter dated May 21, 2008 and requested the Adjudicating officer to take a lenient view in the matter. During the course of hearing, Noticee was requested to furnish certain details in a particular format regarding its contention that it had collected full payment in advance from its clients towards the allegation of non-collection of margins from 29 clients as mentioned in the SCN. The Noticee requested time till February 23, 2011 to submit the details. However, Noticee vide its email dated February 21, 2011 submitted merely the copies of ledger accounts of 29 clients, but did not furnish the details in the desired format.
Page 4 of 22 c) If so, what would be the monetary penalty that can be imposed taking into consideration the factors mentioned in section 15J of SEBI Act?
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-20/2011. 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.