sebi:SO/SG-VS/EAD/32/2017
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 initiated vide show cause notice dated June 16, 2014 disposed of on settlement terms upon payment of Rs 42,90,000 without admission of alleged violations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 23
- s. 23H
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 17
- Reg. 15(1)
Parties
- M/s. ITI Financial Services Limited (merged with M/s Intime Equities Limited)
- M/s Intime Equities Limited
Holding
In terms of Regulation 15(1) of the Settlement Regulations, the adjudication proceedings initiated against the Noticee vide show cause notice dated June 16, 2014 are disposed of on payment of Rs 42,90,000 towards settlement terms.
Full text
Settlement order in the matter of M/s. ITI Financial Services Limited (merged with M/s Intime Equities Limited) Page 2 of 7 positions in F&O and/or outstanding margin obligations on the settlement date or would not have traded in the last six months.
Settlement order in the matter of M/s. ITI Financial Services Limited (merged with M/s Intime Equities Limited) Page 3 of 7 TechExcel that generated the list of clients due for settlement, captures only those accounts which are active and have nil obligation on the settlement date. In other words, the system does not capture or reckon accounts which had settlement obligations irrespective of whether the ledger balance was in excess of outstanding margin obligations or otherwise. A serious lapse on the part of Noticee was alleged considering the fact that the Noticee had not initiated any steps to rectify the said anomaly even after two years of implementation of its quarterly settlement.
Settlement order in the matter of M/s. ITI Financial Services Limited (merged with M/s Intime Equities Limited) Page 4 of 7 Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Rules") and Section 23-I of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “SCR Act”) & Rule 3 of SCR(Procedure for holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “SCR Rules”) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15HB of SEBI Act and Section 23H of SCR Act, the alleged violations by the Noticee as observed during the inspection. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice no. EAD/JJ/AK/17074/2014 dated June 16, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee, calling upon the Noticee to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against it under rule 4 of the SEBI Rules read with section 15-I of SEBI Act & rule 4 of SCR Rules read with section 23-I of SCR Act for the alleged violations as specified in the SCN and penalty be not imposed under Section 15HB of SEBI Act and Section 23H of SCR Act. The SCN was served through speed post AD and the proof of delivery is on record. In response to the same, the Noticee vide its letter dated June 30, 2014 requested to grant it an inspection of the entire record and material relied in the matter so as to enable it to file a comprehensive reply.
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:SO/SG-VS/EAD/32/2017. 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.