TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not resolved completely the impugned order was passed. As seen that after declaration of the appellant as a defaulter more complaints of the investors are pouring in with the respondent nos.1 and 2. The appellant was earlier penalized for similar violations for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. In the circumstances in our considered view the appellant is a continuous violator much less a repeat violator. Besides respondent no 1 had already granted more than sufficient opportunity to redress the complaints of the investors, as it pleaded that it wanted to surrender the license. Therefore in our view this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. - Appeal No. 226 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s license therefore was suspended with effect from 31st May, 2019. 3. The appellant in fact has admitted all the lapses after taking time to reply to the show cause notices. It ultimately submitted that due to huge loss suffered by the company in proprietary trading activity because of mischief of one of their trader there was shortage of the working capital which caused the discrepancy. The appellant has sought for time to rectify the same time and again. The Committee of the respondent no. 1 granted time to the appellant on several occasions. The Committee finally found that after satisfaction of some complaints over this period by the appellant still there were nine investor's complaints pending against the appellant as on March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant in fact was the victim of the circumstances as due to the mischief of one entity it had suffered huge losses. The appellant wanted to surrender the license issued by the both the respondents. Besides this the amount of ₹ 36.25 lacs is due from respondent no. 2 BSE but the same has not been returned. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Committee of the respondent no. 1 and, thereafter also the appellant continued to resolve the complaints of the investo₹ 99.9% of the total complaints were settled. Only complaints worth ₹ 5.9 lakhs remained pending as on the date of hearing that can be found from the finding of the Committee of the respondent no. 1. The impugned order, according to him, is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clients and ₹ 3.82 crores as regards inactive clients. Besides this the appellant had received an amount of ₹ 75,000 from third parties in client bank account against the rules and regulations. The appellant has also met clients obligation from his own securities in one instance amounting to ₹ 67,429. Unreconciled balance lying in suspense account amounting to ₹ 534 lakhs was also noted during that year. As regards the discrepancy in computation of net worth during the said year it was found that by not debiting the balance amount which was not recovered within three months the net worth of the appellant was eroded. Besides this the appellant was found operating trading terminal in derivative and currency segment wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ator and the violations are serious in nature. The Committee of the respondent no. 1 also noted that as on 27th March, 2020 the complaints of nine investors in the value of ₹ 5,90,922 remained to be resolved. The appellant was found unable to settle the pending complaints and in the circumstances the order was passed. 11. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, as pointed out in the affidavit in sur rejoinder, more complaints were received from the investors for misuse of clients securities worth an amount of ₹ 19,99,166.10 as detailed in exhibit 'A' of this sur- rejoinder. 12. Respondent no. 2, BSE submitted that during the hearing before the Committee of the respondent no. 1 no plea regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urities etc. as detailed supra.. All the violations are admitted by him. No reply was submitted to the show cause notice issued regaring violation noted in the inspection for the year 2017-18. Considering the request of the appellant that he wanted to surrender his license afer redressing the complaints the investors, the Committee of respondent no. 1 time and again granted him time in hearing of the proceedings. However, ultimately finding that the complaints were not resolved completely the impugned order was passed. It can further be seen that after declaration of the appellant as a defaulter more complaints of the investors are pouring in with the respondent nos.1 and 2. The appellant was earlier penalized for similar violations for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
