sebi:Settlement_Orders_216_Order_against_M_s._Business_Point_Services
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Business Point Services restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities for a period of one year
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 4(3)
Regulations
- Reg. 11
Parties
- Business Point Services
Holding
Business Point Services (BPS), acting as a sub-broker, was restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities for a period of one year for its role in transactions carried out with a view to defraud genuine investors and posing a risk to the stock exchange mechanism.
Full text
under Section 11B of SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulation 11 of SEBI (Prohibitio Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, including directions for debarring it from accessing the capital market and dealin securities for a suitable period and directions under SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 should not be issued. The allegation against BPS laid out in the show cause notice is that it had while acting as a sub-broker to Biswanath Murlidhar, Member, BSE sold about 2,75,000 shares of Ritesh for a client namely Vi Enterprises.
5. BPS has in its reply to the aforesaid notice received on 25.02.03 submitted that, it was involved in the business of sub-broking till 1996 and has thereafter discontinued the sa The transactions as specified above were in the ordinary course of business to their clients. The broker, Biswanath Murlidhar has filed a petition before the Bombay High C against BPS, Ritesh etc., for failure of Ritesh to transfer the shares sold through BPS as specified above. This, BPS has submitted goes to prove the fact that it had acted only i capacity as a sub-broker for the transactions and was in no way involved in the transactions entered into in the scrip of Ritesh.
6. Pursuant to the above an opportunity of being heard was given to BPS on 15.05.03 which was later rescheduled to 12.06.03. BPS had vide its letter received on 10.06.03 indica that it would not be able to attend the hearing on the specified day and had requested another date of hearing. I am convinced that sufficient opportunity has been provided to B for making its submissions before me. Therefore, I proceed to analyse the facts of the case based on the material available on record and the reply furnished by BPS to the s cause notice.
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:Settlement_Orders_216_Order_against_M_s._Business_Point_Services. 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.