sebi:WTM/PS/81/IVD/ID-08/MARCH/2011
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 passing any further order; no additional penalty imposed as registration was already cancelled.
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 4(a)
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 38(2)
Parties
- Triumph International Finance India Limited
Holding
SEBI disposed of the enquiry proceedings against Triumph International Finance India Limited without imposing any further penalty, as its certificate of registration had already been cancelled by order dated May 16, 2002, which was upheld by SAT and the Supreme Court.
Full text
Page 2 of 4 with subsequent order dated July 24, 2003. SEBI appointed the Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the alleged violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’) and SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Broker Regulations’). The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report dated March 16, 2004, in terms of Regulation 13 (1) of the Enquiry Regulations recommending a penalty of cancellation of the certificate of registration of the noticee for violating the provisions of Regulation 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of PFUTP Regulations, Regulation 7 read with Clause A (3) and (4) of the Broker Regulations, Rule 4 (b) of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Rules, 1992, Bye-law 357 of BSE bye-laws, Rule 4 (b) and (e) of the Rules of NSE and Regulations 4.5.4 (c) and 4.6.2 of Regulations of NSE.
Page 3 of 4 noticee. Pursuant to this, the noticee filed an application for the settlement of proceedings through a consent order. The application filed by the noticee was dealt in accordance with the SEBI Circular dated April 20, 2007. Subsequently, the proceedings initiated under the SCN were revived as the application for consent was rejected by SEBI. Having seen that sufficient opportunity have been given to the noticee to explain its case, I am compelled to proceed with the matter on the basis of material available on record, having complied with the principles of natural justice.
Page 4 of 4 manipulative trades in various scrips along with the other entities controlled by Ketan Parekh. I note that these orders were challenged by the noticee before the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAT’). Hon’ble SAT vide its order dated May 04, 2007, after considering the material on record dismissed the appeal of the noticee on merits. Hon’ble SAT in its
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/PS/81/IVD/ID-08/MARCH/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.