sebi:WTM/KMA/MIRSD/133/09/2009
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Strictly warned and directed to abide by laws; Enquiry Officer's recommendation of 10-day suspension not imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 28(2)
Parties
- M/s Ashok Kumar K. Damani
Holding
The Broker violated SEBI Circular dated August 05, 1996, Rules 8(1)(f) and 8(3)(f) of SCRR, and SEBI Circular dated November 18, 1993, but the proceeding was disposed of with a strict warning to M/s Ashok Kumar K. Damani instead of the 10-day suspension recommended by the Enquiry Officer.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 period of ten days. The Enquiry Officer observed that the Broker inter alia violated the following provisions of law/circular: (i) SEBI Circular No. SMD/MDP/CIR/043/96 dated August 05, 1996. (ii) Rules 8(1)(f) and 8(3)(f) of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as SCRR). (iii) SEBI Circular No. SMD/SED/Cir/93/23321 dated November 18, 1993.
Page 3 of 9 respect to misutilization of clients’ accounts, the Broker stated that whatever amount was withdrawn from clients’ account was for meeting small expenses, electric bills, rent etc., which represented only brokerage income belonging to it. The Broker contended that many clients preferred to keep the funds in their account with it without transferring the same to their own account to avoid frequent transfer of funds. The Broker further contended that the clients also preferred to keep funds with it as margin money for future purchases. The Broker also claimed that there was no irregular payment or delay in payment to clients but the funds have been kept with it pursuant to the written instructions of the clients. The Broker also replied upon the earlier orders in similar matters passed by SEBI. The Broker further stated that, even in multiple cases of serious violations by stock brokers, penalties were reduced to warning. In this regard, the Broker also listed out certain cases wherein SEBI had passed warning orders against stock brokers.
Page 4 of 9 4. I have considered the Enquiry Report, the oral as well as written submissions made on behalf of the Broker and other material available on record. The Enquiry Officer observed that the Broker had generated the contract notes without pre-printed serial numbers and that the dates of acknowledgement on the contract notes were not mentioned. In terms of SEBI circular dated August 05, 1996, SEBI, inter alia advised that serious view would be taken, if certain deficiencies are found out during the course of inspections of the stock broker. One of such deficiencies specified in the circular was that the contract notes did not have pre-printed serial numbers. The plea of the Broker that it was a practice to start each serial number on a daily basis linked to the settlement or on a day-to-day basis cannot be accepted as the aforesaid mandate was in force since August 1996 and the period of inspection (of the Broker) was April 2000 to September, 2002. Besides, the submission of the Broker in its reply dated November 21, 2006 that “as per the practice in the market prevailing at that time in 2001- 2002, contract notes were not having pre-printed numbers in the initial stage” indicates that there was no pre-printed serial number on the contract notes. Needless to say, the Broker generated contract notes without the pre-printed serial numbers. In respect of the allegation that the dates of acknowledgment were absent on the contract notes, the Enquiry Officer observed that t
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/MIRSD/133/09/2009. 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.