sebi:WTM/GA/ISD/111/12/06
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Minor penalty imposed: suspension of certificate of registration for fifteen days, effective on expiry of 21 days from the date of the order.
Provisions invoked
- s. 12
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 5(1)
- Reg. 13(2)
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 17(1)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 4(a)(b)(c)
Parties
- M/s Shrine Investments Ltd.
Holding
The Broker violated SEBI Circular dated February 11, 1997 (KYC norms) and Clause B(2) of the Code of Conduct under the Broker Regulations by failing to properly introduce clients, assess their financial capacity, and issue contract notes directly to clients. A minor penalty of suspension of the certificate of registration for fifteen days was imposed.
Full text
Home » Enforcement » Orders » Orders of Chairman/Members Enforcement Enforcement▼ Order against M/s Shrine Investments Dec 08, 2006 | Orders : Orders of Chairman/Members SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
3.1 Based upon the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, a notice dated January 12, 2005 was issued to the Broker under regulation 13(2) of the 2002 Regulations, asking him t cause as to why the penalty as considered appropriate should not be imposed upon him. A copy of the Enquiry Report was also forwarded to the Broker with the said show notice. M/s Thakordas & Madgavkar, Advocates and Solicitors on behalf of the Broker, vide letter dated January 27, 2005 sought 15 days time for filing the reply to the sai cause notice. The aforesaid advocate, as instructed by the Broker (vide letter dated February 15, 2005), had again requested SEBI to extend the time for filing the reply by 1 As no reply was received from the Broker, vide letter dated February 13, 2006, SEBI had once again advised the Broker to file his reply to the said show cause notice. SE also advised the Broker to inform as to whether he was desirous of attending personal hearing before SEBI. M/s Thakordas & Madgavkar, Advocates and Solicitors on behal Broker, vide letter dated February 18, 2006, had again requested two weeks time for filing the reply. However, no reply was received from the Broker. From the above it is se sufficient opportunities were given to the Broker for submitting his reply to the show cause notice issued by SEBI. In these circumstances, it appears that the Broker is not inte in filing the reply and in availing the opportunity of hearing and that no useful purpose will be served in giving any
Date : 08-12-06 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 28/10/2025, 11:55 about:blank about:blank 3/3 4. It is alleged that the broker actively traded in the scrip of HTL and artificially created higher price and volumes in the scrip of HTL. The broker entered into transactions that are not genuine trade transactions. It is alleged that the broker contravened provisions of the Regulation 4(a)(b)(c) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 and violated Clause A(3-4) of the Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule II read with Regulation 7 of SEBI (SB&SB) Regulations 1992”. 2.2 The Broker furnished his reply and made his submissions before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in terms of the 2002 Regulations and, vide report dated December 31, 2004, he had recommended for the imposition of a minor penalty of suspension of the certificate of registration of the Broker for a period of 30 days.
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:WTM/GA/ISD/111/12/06. 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.