9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) of National Stock Exchange of India Limited ("NSE" for short) dated February 03, 2017. By the said order the DAC of NSE has declined to consider the Review Application filed by the appellant against the decision of the DAC of NSE dated October 25, 2016. As a result, penalty of Rs. 10 lac imposed against the appellant and suspension of the trading membership of the appellant in all segments for a period of 5 trading days from Monday 27th February 2017 to Friday 3rd March, 2017 has attained finality. 3. Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that total ban/prohibition from trading for 5 days is erroneously imposed on the appellant in a "casual, nonchalant and blasé manner". He submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eficiary account." With reference to the second violation alleged by NSE, appellant in the affidavit in reply dated November 20, 2015 stated as follows:- " As per our previous submission regarding the inspection, the shares lying in the account of Mr. Naveen Kumar Gupta (Client Code H1) belonging to the other clients and the same was as per mutual understanding between Mr. Naveen Kumar Gupta and respective clients, and were used by Mr. Naveen Kumar Gupa by their consent only." 7. It is further interesting to note that the oral submission made by the appellant as recorded in the order of DAC of NSE dated October 25, 2016 reads thus:- "Prrsaar's oral submissions before DAC 7. Prrsaar was represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Ved Prakash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akash Gupta proprietor of the appellant and thereafter transferring the said securities to the account of Global Fincap was in gross violation of the norms laid down by NSE. 9. Counsel for the appellant sought to argue that there are several errors in quantifying the amounts alleged to have been diverted from the clients beneficiary accounts to the demat account of Naveen Kumar Gupta. However, we have not permitted counsel for the appellant to raise that plea, because, firstly, no such plea was raised in the Review Application filed by the appellant before the DAC of NSE. Secondly, even if there are some discrepancies in the quantum of amounts moved from the clients beneficiary accounts, very fact that the appellant has moved funds an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
