Sunita Jain
Penalties and directions recorded
- Adjudicating Officer order imposing Rs 3 lac penalty jointly and severally upheld
SAT-appeal
- Challenge to NSE Defaulters’ Committee rejection of claims for payment from the Investor Protection Fund. The claims arose from deposits with Kassa that SAT found were loan/illegal para-banking transactions rather than trading-related margin.Appeal No. 153 of 2017 dismissed · Appeal No. 356 of 2017 dismissedAppeal: Appeal Nos. 153 of 2017 and 356 of 2017 dismissed by SAT on 17 May 2018
- Failure to make continual disclosures of aggregate shareholding as of 31 March within seven working days to stock exchange and target company under Reg 30(2)/30(3) SAST 2011, delayed by 147 days.Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs · Adjudicating Officer order imposing Rs 3 lac penalty jointly and severally upheldAppeal: Appeal No. 63 of 2014 dismissed on 13.08.2014
- Investor claims against defaulter broker Kassa held to be loan/para-banking transactions for fixed interest/loyalty bonus with zero trades, hence inadmissible for payment from NSE IPF.Both Appeal No. 153 of 2017 and Appeal No. 356 of 2017 dismissed with no order as to costs · Defaulter's Committee rejection of IPF claims upheld as loan transactions barred by Bye-law 24Appeal: Appeal Nos. 153 of 2017 and 356 of 2017 disposed by SAT common decision dated 17.05.2018 (reserved 08.05.2018) - both dismissed
Source: SecMarx — Sunita Jain. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (charges, outcomes, appeal chain) is cited to us.