sebi:Settlement_Orders_213_Order_against_NK_Malpani

SEBI · SEBI · 2004-08-23 · MADH, Whole Time Member

Reviewed by Varun Matlani, Advocate — Securities Lawyer practicing in SAT and SEBI

Facts / Headnote

Warning

Provisions invoked

• s. 19

Regulations relied on

• SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 1995 — 4
• SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992 — 7

Parties

• M/s. N K Malpani

Holding

M/s. N K Malpani, registered sub-broker INS 011734311, was warned to be careful in future and to diligently adhere to the SEBI Act, 1992 and regulations thereunder.

Full text

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ORDER Under Regulation 13(4) of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations, 2002, against M/s. N K Malpani, a registered sub-broker, INS 011734311           Whereas, Securities and Exchange Board of India ( hereinafter referred to as SEBI ) conducted an investigation into the alleged price manip in the scrip of Rashel Agrotech Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “RAL”) during the period from April 03, 2000 to October 06, 2000. The invest revealed that majority of the sellers who had traded in the scrip of RAL during the relevant period were interrelated and also connected to The investigation indicated that M/s. N K Malpani (hereinafter referred to as “Malpani”), a SEBI registered sub-broker had done one transact 100 shares of RAL on behalf of one of its clients Mr. Rakesh Jain in which he appeared on both sides of the trade; and           whereas, an enquiry officer was thus appointed by SEBI under Regulation 5 of SEBI (Procedure for holding enquiry by Enquiry Offic Imposing Penalty) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Enquiry Regulations’) to enquire into the alleged violations of Securitie Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act), SEBI (Stock Brokers & Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations) and SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 1995 (here referred to as FUTP Regulations), and,

whereas, a copy of the said Enquiry Report was forwarded to Malpani along with a show cause notice dated September 06, 2004 advisin show cause as to why action as may be considered appropriate should not be taken against it, and

whereas, Malpani replied to the said show cause notice vide its letter dated September 14, 2004 and interalia submitted that it was a unintentional manual mistake which occurred while operating on computer, as it had placed buy order for same quantity without confirmation sale order at the same price and therefore, the minor penalty of warning as recommended by the Enquiry Officer may not be imposed therefore, I, while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and having considered the nature and gravity of the charges established, in the fac circumstances of the case, the mitigating factors as explained above, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the SEBI Act , rea Regulation 13(4) of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulation 2002, hereby warn M/s Malpani , a registered sub-broker bearing No. INS 011734311 to be careful in future in its dealings in the securities market and diligently adh the provisions of the SEBI Act ,1992 and the regulations made there under. DATE : 27-12-2005 PLACE: MUMBAI MADH WHOLE TIME ME SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Settlement_Orders_213_Order_against_NK_Malpani. 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.