9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjustified – Appeal dismissed. - Appeal No.366 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - J.P. Devadhar and Jog Singh, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate i/b The Law Point Per : Jog Singh, Member (Oral) 1. The Appellant has challenged the impugned Order dated 30th June, 2014 passed by the Respondent by which 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) R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ational Stock Exchange Limited which were granted to the Appellant, 4 terminals at 3 locations were allotted to the ultimate clients in contravention of SEBI Circular dated 22nd 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 said Circular makes it abundantly clear that the trading terminals gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. 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 Appellant has been rightly found guilty of violating the provisions of the Circular as well as the Code of Conduct and the norms prescribed under the Stock Brokers and Sub- Brokers Regulations, 1992. Shri Kumar Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent also brought to our notice Circular No.163 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material available on record, it is not possible to ascertain the exact monetary loss to the investors on account of non-compliance by the Noticee. I, however, note that the turnover of the Noticee from NSE terminal MSB05 from March 30, 2012 (since the terminal was allotted to the Noticee on March 30, 2012) till the date of inspection i.e. August 8, 2012 was ₹ 93,09,655 on buy side and ₹ 96,65,424 on sell side. The turnover from BSE terminal MSB024 from January 1, 2011 to March 30, 2012 was ₹ 2,15,26,163 on buy side and ₹ 2,05,88,628 on sell side; from BSE terminal MSB05 from January 5, 2011 to July 12, 2012 was ₹ 13,35,276 on buy side and ₹ 13,14,855 on sell side; and from BSE terminal MSB06 from Janu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
