sebi:WTM/TCN/MIRSD/57/06/11

SEBI · SEBI · 1996-08-05 · T.C. Nair, Whole Time Member

Reviewed by Varun Matlani, Advocate — Securities Lawyer practicing in SAT and SEBI

Facts / Headnote

Warning

Provisions invoked

• s. 19

Regulations relied on

• SEBI (Enquiry & Penalty) Regulations, 2002
• SEBI (Stock Brokers) Regulations, 1992

Parties

• Abhipra Capital Ltd.

Holding

SEBI agreed with the Enquiry Officer and warned Abhipra Capital Ltd. to be more cautious and adhere to the SEBI Act and regulations, holding it guilty on non-use of pre-printed serial numbers and delay in transfer of securities while giving lenient view/benefit of doubt on other charges.

Full text

Home » Enforcement » Orders » Orders of Chairman/Members Enforcement Enforcement▼ In the matter of Abhipra Capital Limitesd Nov 02, 2006 | Orders : Orders of Chairman/Members BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Coram: T.C. NAIR, WHOLE TIME MEMBER In the matter of ABHIPRA CAPITAL LTD. WTM/TCN/MIRSD/57/06/11 Hearing: Not sought for

of issuance. Some confirmation letters from clients of having received the contract-notes by clients was also presented before Enquiry Officer. Being convinced with the submissions, Enquiry Officer stated that it is not necessary to have acknowledgement on the office copy of the contract note and that be done if the duplicate office copy of the contract note can be relatable to proof of delivery through post, I agree with these findings and inclined to take a lenient view. (d) Duplicate contract-notes were not signed by the broker With regard to the finding that the office/ duplicate contract notes were not signed by the broker, it was submitted by the broker that these were dispatched eve bulk and there was no requirement that the office copy should be signed by the authorized signatory. The broker further contended that copies given to the clients w authenticated and signed and the office copies were usually initialed and due to some human error one office copy might have been remained un-initialed. The Enquiry Officer after examining the confirmation from Mr. Nitin Maheshwari (client) about receiving the contract-note in the case pointed out in the inspectio found that there is only one instance stated by the inspection report. He further found that contract notes for the purpose of enforcement by the client are valid if signe clients copy. The Enquiry further came to the conclusion that it is of no relevance whether office copy is signed or not. Considering submissions of

I have considered the submissions of the broker regarding the authority given by the clients and the total value but these can not be relied on without any specific I find no merits in the contention raised by the broker regarding volume as this is against the principles of market regulations and find that the delay of three days has n properly explained by the broker. I have, therefore, no reason to disagree with the Enquiry Officer.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/TCN/MIRSD/57/06/11. 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.