sebi:WTM/KMA/IVD-ERO/19/11/2008
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Enquiry proceedings disposed of without imposing any further penalty on the stock broker
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
- Reg. 4(2)
Parties
- Mr. Purshottam Lal Kejdiwal
Holding
The Broker, Mr. Purshottam Lal Kejdiwal, violated Regulation 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e) of the FUTP Regulations and Clauses A(1) to A(4) of the Code of Conduct under the Broker Regulations by executing matched/synchronized trades that created a misleading appearance of trading. However, no further penalty was imposed, as the period of prohibition already undergone was taken into account.
Full text
Page 2 of 10 Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the FUTP Regulations) and the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub- Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Broker Regulations). In the facts and circumstances, in order to protect the interest of investors, SEBI, vide an ad- interim ex parte order dated November 30, 2005 inter alia directed various entities/stock brokers, including the stock broker namely, Mr. Purshottam Lal Kejdiwal (Member, CSE) not to buy, sell or deal in securities, in any manner, either directly or indirectly, till further
Page 3 of 10 India (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Enquiry Regulations). In the meanwhile, SEBI, vide order dated August 11, 2008, for the reasons stated therein, vacated the directions passed vide interim orders dated November 30, 2005 and May 31, 2006, as against the stock brokers. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer/Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Enquiry Officer) , vide report dated October 24, 2008 recommended the suspension of the certificate of registration of the Broker for a period of six months. However, the Enquiry Officer, further recommended to set off the said period of six months against the period of prohibition already undergone by the Broker in terms of the above mentioned interim orders of SEBI. Subsequently, SEBI, vide letter dated October 30, 2008 issued a notice to the Broker to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him as recommended by the Enquiry Officer or as it considered appropriate. A copy of the Enquiry Report was also forwarded to the Broker along with the said notice. The Broker was also advised to inform SEBI, whether he desired to avail an opportunity of hearing. The Broker vide letter dated November 10, 2008 inter alia stated that he had already submitted his submissions vide letters dated May 7, 2007 and January 14, 2008 (to the Enquiry Officer) and that he had nothing to state further in the matter. Further, the Broker u
Page 4 of 10 Kejdiwal, Mr. Santosh K. Kejdiwal, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Lodha and Mr. Sanju Kabra collectively executed trades involving 4,08,800 shares in the company during the relevant period. The said trades accounted for approximately 93% of the total volume in the shares of the company (during the relevant period). The trade details of the Broker in the shares of the company at CSE during the relevant period are as follows:
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/KMA/IVD-ERO/19/11/2008. 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.