Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Master Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. Versus Master Share & Stock Brokers Ltd.

2015 (10) TMI 1717 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

Penalty for Violation of SEBI Circular read with Clause A(2) of the Code of Conduct; Regulation 15 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 Whether 4 terminals, out of terminals granted, at 3 locations were allotted to ultimate clients in contravention to said regulations? Held That:- Terminals under issue not managed by authorized employee or by sub-broker himself - Appellant found guilty of violating the Circular as well as the Code of Con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich penalty of ₹ 3 lac has been imposed on the Appellant for violation of Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) Circular dated 22nd October, 2001 read with Clause A(2) of the Code of Conduct as prescribed under Schedule II, Regulation 15 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for short Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers Regulations, 1992 ). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant namely, Master Share & St .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tock Brokers and Sub-Brokers Regulations, 1992 along with the provisions of SEBI Circular dated 22nd October, 2001. SEBI accordingly appointed an Adjudicating Officer to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter as per the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 and adjudge under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 18th October, 2013 was issued to the Appellant and it filed a reply dated 30th November, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2nd October, 2001 thereby violating the provisions of the Code of Conduct and the Regulations in question. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri Prakash Shah, vehemently argued that 4 terminals at 3 locations in dispute were being run by the professionals who were appointed on contract basis and there was no bar in having terminals fixed at other locations. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and provisions of law in detail. Para 2 of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ses and it should be within the knowledge of the Stock Exchange as well as SEBI that the terminals are being run at the office of the broker or its branch office or at the registered sub-broker s office. No other place is authorized to have a trading terminal. The relevant portion of the said Circular dated 22nd October, 2001 is reproduced hereinbelow for facility of reference: Grant of trading terminals It has further come to the notice of SEBI that the trading terminals granted to the stockbro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ir trading terminals of unregistered sub-broking activities. Stock Exchanges are also advised to amend their bye-laws suitably to prohibit their members from dealing with sub-brokers who are not registered with SEBI. 6. We find from the contents of the show-cause notice and the impugned order that crux of the allegations against the Appellant is that he allotted trading terminals to the ultimate clients, which is prohibited by SEBI. The legality of the Circular is not in dispute. Therefore, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ect control of the trading member and be managed either by an authorized employee or by a registered sub-broker of the trading member. In the present case, admittedly, the 4 terminals at 3 locations in dispute were managed by a consultants/persons engaged on contract basis and not by authorized employee or by the sub-broker himself. 7. Turning to the point urged by Shri Prakash Shah that the penalty is unjustified and any minor punishment would have sufficed the purpose. In this context, we woul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version