sebi:WTM/VKC/ID6/106/07
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed: suspension of sub-broker certificate of registration for two months
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 15(1)(b)
- Reg. 6(1)
Parties
- M/s Shreepati Holdings & Finance Private Ltd.
Holding
The Noticee, a sub-broker, was found to have violated Regulation 4(a) and 4(b) of the PFUTP Regulations and the Code of Conduct under the Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers Regulations, 1992, by executing manipulative, structured, synchronized and cross trades in the SIL scrip on behalf of clients connected to the management of SIL. A penalty of suspension of the sub-broker's certificate of registration for two months was imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 25 was adopted by the company after it changed its name with effect from May 11, 2000. 1.2 The company was listed on Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd (BSE) on May 16, 1996, after the public issue. Shri Joglekar and his family members sold their stake in SIL in the year 2000 to Shri Anil Pujari, Shri Rajan Tawate, Shri Tanvir Zaki, Shri Pravin Sonalkar, Ms Hafeza Vohra and Shri Kuldeep Handoo and all of them were introduced by Manish Marwah. Shri Hemant Damodar Mehta, a consultant, introduced Shri Manish Kumar Marwah to Shri Joglekar and his family members.
Page 3 of 25 manipulative trades in SIL scrip. The Noticee had executed manipulative trades on behalf of the clients who were connected to Shri Kuldip Handoo and Shri Dilip Nabera and created artificial market in SIL scrip.
Page 4 of 25 2.3.2 The Code of Conduct governing them did not require them to verify the technical details about the company in which the clients dealt. 2.3.3 They did not know Anil Pujari and his associates personally. 2.3.4 They were also not aware as to when the management of SIL changed. They were not required to keep track of any transactions entered into by the new promoters and directors of SIL and through whom they had carried out such trades in the scrip of SIL. 2.3.5 The data given by SEBI for the number of trades and quantity traded was also not known to them. 2.3.6 They did not indulge in any large scale trading volumes in the scrip of SIL nor had they entered into any artificial trades. The trades in SIL were executed only after taking the account opening forms. 2.3.7 Their clients had bought shares through cheques or sold the shares by giving deliveries and in both the cases, they had exercised due diligence and made sure that they sold when delivery was available with the client and bought when cheque was available with the client. 2.3.8 Had the exchange or SEBI informed them in 2000, they would not have dealt with the client or in the scrip of SIL. 2.3.9 The media was also promoting the scrip of SIL at that point of time. 2.3.10 They were in no way connected to Shilpa Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd (Shilpa) nor did they know any entity by the name of Adinath Propcon. All the deals got executed through the market mechanism and hence any synchronized trades happening be
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/VKC/ID6/106/07. 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.