9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with some of the directions issued by the DAC such as submission of CA Certificate, fulfillment of the networth criteria, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed on the appellant is disproportionate in the given facts and circumstances. The violations are not light enough to let off the appellants scot-free as contended by them. In the result, while upholding the monetary penalty of ₹ 15 lakh imposed on the appellant we modify the direction relating to suspension of the appellant from all segments of the exchange NSE for 5 days to that of a direction not to enroll or register any fresh clients for a period of one month. This period of one month shall commence from the seventh day of the date of this order. - Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res belonging to 515 clients. (b) Acceptance of deposits by offering fixed returns from more than 200 entities and to the tune of ₹ 21.56 crores and not reflecting such receipts of funds in the financial ledgers/ trial balance of the appellant. (c) Discrepancy in computation of networth and misrepresentation of data submitted to the Exchange. Because of the aforesaid violations, it was held that the appellant has failed to abide by the Code of Conduct for trading member prescribed under Regulation 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of CM and F O Segments relating to adherence to SEBI Code of Conduct and general principles of professionalism, adherence to trading principles, honesty and fairness. 3. Learned counsel Shri Prakash Shah, appearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts as directed by DAC and no violation has been committed and hence the appellant is not liable for any penalty and in any case not a harsh penalty of ₹ 15 lakhs and 5 days suspension. To emphasise this point further the appellant relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prrsaar v. NSE (Civil Appeal No. 3260 of 2017, dated 22-7-2019) whereby the matter has been remanded to this Tribunal to decide afresh the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the order of this Tribunal in Bezel Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India [2019] 103 taxmann.com 29 and pleaded that the impugned order violates 'Doctrine of proportionality' and needs to be set aside. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being pledged, acceptance of deposits to the tune of ₹ 21.56 crores and non-settlement of funds belonging to 601 clients etc. However, since the appellant has complied with some of the directions issued by the DAC such as submission of CA Certificate, fulfillment of the networth criteria, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed on the appellant is disproportionate in the given facts and circumstances. However, we are also of the considered view that the violations are not light enough to let off the appellants scot-free as contended by them. Reliance on the orders of Sharewealth and JRG (supra) are distinguishable on facts. In the result, while upholding the monetary penalty of ₹ 15 lakh imposed on the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
