sebi:WTM/KMA/MIRSD/406/07/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Stock broker found guilty of multiple contraventions; instead of the recommended one-month suspension of registration, the Competent Authority issued a warning under Regulation 28 of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 and advised strict future compliance.
Regulations
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 28
- Reg. 28(1)
- Reg. 38(2)
Parties
- VCK Share & Stock Broking Services Limited
Holding
The stock broker, VCK Share & Stock Broking Services Limited, was held liable for contravening multiple SEBI circulars, NSE regulations, and statutory rules relating to contract notes, client agreements, segregation of client money and securities, margin collection, client codes, and investor grievance redressal. In lieu of the Enquiry Officer's recommended one-month suspension of its registration, the Competent Authority imposed only a warning under Regulation 28 of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008.
Full text
Page 2 of 23 terms of Regulations 28(1) and Regulation 38(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Intermediaries Regulations) as to why action should not be taken against it as recommended by the Enquiry Officer or a higher penalty as deemed fit by the Competent Authority be imposed. Subsequently, the stock broker made its
Page 3 of 23 ix. SEBI Circular No. SMDRP/Policy/CIR-39/2001 dated July 18, 2001 The findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the allegations against the stock broker are considered and the findings in respect of the same are dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.
Page 4 of 23 books of the stock broker in the present matter was conducted during the period - April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2004, much after the date of issuance of the said circular. The stock broker had a lot of time, subsequent to the aforesaid circular, at his disposal to engage systems for pre-printing the serial number in the contract notes. The submission that old unused stationery was used cannot be a convincing ground to take a lenient view or to condone the lapse. Further, as per the submissions of the stock broker, it was only from April 1, 2004, that the stock broker had upgraded its systems to enable it to pre-print serial numbers in the contract notes and to generate contract notes on a yearly basis which complied with the regulatory requirements. Therefore, I find that the stock broker had defaulted in pre-printing serial numbers in the contract notes issued by it during the relevant period, in contravention of the SEBI Circular dated August 5, 1996. I also find that the stock broker has been alleged to have issued unsigned contract notes in 7 instances, which again, is a contravention of the SEBI Circular dated August 5, 1996. The Enquiry Officer has observed that when all other details were present in the contract notes, it was difficult to believe why only the signatures of the authorized person were not present. It was also observed that no documentary evidence was present to substantiate the stock broker’s submission that the instances have been noted and in
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/406/07/2011. 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.