sebi:WTM/VKC/MIRSD/5/09/06

SEBI · SEBI · 2004-05-10 · V.K. Chopra, Whole Time Member

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Penalty of censure imposed

Provisions invoked

• s. 19

Regulations

• Reg. 6
• Reg. 13(2)
• Reg. 13(4)
• Reg. 17
• Reg. 5
• Reg. 200

Parties

• Dilip Shah, Member, U.P. Stock Exchange Association Ltd., SEBI Registration No. INB 101088715

Holding

In exercise of powers under Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 13(4) of the Enquiry Regulations, the Whole Time Member imposed a penalty of censure on Dilip Shah, member, UPSE Ltd. bearing SEBI Registration No. INB 101088715, and did not accept the Enquiry Officer's recommendation of suspension for six months.

Full text

Home » Enforcement » Orders » Orders of Chairman/Members Enforcement Enforcement▼ ORDER (Under Regulation 13(4) of SEBI (Procedure of Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty) Regulations, 2002) 1.1 Dilip Shah (hereinafter referred to as “broker”) is a corporate entity and is a broker of Uttar Pradesh Stock Exchange Association Ltd. bearin Registration No. (INB 101088715). 1.2 An inspection of the books of accounts of the broker was carried for the period April 01, 2001 to July 05, 2003 through Ramesh Agrawal Chartered Accountants appointed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI). During the inspection, s irregularities / violations were found to have been committed by the broker.

(c)    Non maintenance of Margin Deposit Book With regard to the findings that the broker had not maintained the Margin Deposit Book, the broker submitted that the margins co from clients were directly credited in their current account. This explanation of the broker is further supported by the production of the c the record at the time of hearing before the Enquiry Officer. In view of this, action on the broker is not warranted.

Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Enquiry Regulations) vide order dated March 31, 2004. 2.2 A Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as SCN) dated May 10, 2004 was issued to the broker under Regulation 6 (1) of the Enquiry Regulations. The broker submitted its reply vide letters dated May 29, 2004. The broker had also availed the opportunity of personal hearing on November 02, 2004. After considering the reply of the broker, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his report dated November 17, 2004 recommending a penalty of suspension of certificate of registration of the broker for a period of six months. 2.3 A copy of the Enquiry Report was issued to the broker along with a SCN dated February 09, 2005, in terms of Regulation 13(2) of the Enquiry Regulations calling upon it to show cause as to why appropriate penalty including the penalty as recommended by the Enquiry Officer should not be imposed on it. The broker had replied to the said SCN vide its letter dated February 24, 2005. 2.4 The broker was also given an opportunity of personal hearing before me on July 26, 2006. But on the designated date no one was present on behalf of the broker. However written

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/VKC/MIRSD/5/09/06. 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.