sebi:WTM/TCN/135/IVD1/JAN/09
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Warning issued to the sub broker; proposal to impose higher penalty than recommended by the Enquiry Officer rejected
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 13(2)
- Reg. 4(a)
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 13(5)
Parties
- M/s. Deepak Bhogilal Shah
Holding
The Whole Time Member declined to enhance the penalty beyond the Enquiry Officer's recommendation of a warning, finding no legally sustainable grounds for enhancement, and instead directed the sub broker to exercise due care and diligence in future.
Full text
2 scrip by creating artificial volume in the market thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice relating Securities Market) Regulations 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”). It was further alleged that the sub broker failed to exercise due care and diligence and violated clauses A(1),(2), D(1), (4) and (5) of Code of Conduct as specified in schedule II under Regulation 15 of the SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub Broker) Regulations, 1992.
3 5. The sub broker vide its letter dated February 28, 2006 interalia stated that Shri Shirish Shah was a genuine client since many years and had introduced Shri Raju Ghoda as a client, whom they had not met personally. Since they had a long satisfactory association with Shri Shah, they had no hesitation for enrolling Shri Ghoda as a client and executing the transactions recommended by Shri Shah on behalf of Shri Ghoda. Shri Shah used to place orders on behalf of Shri Ghoda and they in turn executed the transactions. While executing orders all obligations were fulfilled by Shri Shah. In the course of executing the orders for so many retail clients, it was not possible to keep a watch as desired in the show cause notice. Keeping in view the value of the total transactions and the small number of transactions entered into by Shri Shirish Shah on behalf of Shri Ghoda, the fact that the said transactions were entered into on various dates and time over a period of time and not on a single day, it was highly improbable for a sub- broker to suspect the action of the party or make any enquiries about the transactions entered into by him as expected or observed by the Enquiry Officer. On knowing that Shri Ghoda had entered into such practice against investor’s interest as observed by SEBI they have discontinued the transactions with him. They have no role in the issue of trading of shares of Database Finance Ltd., either directly or indirectly and they have acted bonafidely while exe
4 contemplating imposing of higher penalty than that recommended by the Enquiry Officer. 6. An opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the broker on September 05, 2006 before me. Shri Bharat Shah, Partner, M/s. Deepak Bhogilal Shah attended the hearing on behalf of the sub broker and made submissions.
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/TCN/135/IVD1/JAN/09. 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.