9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces were checked and in 31 instances misutilization was observed ranging between Rs. 88,000 to Rs. 2.48 crores. Some of the instances have been tabulated and reproduced in paragraph No.21 of the impugned order. It is also recorded in paragraph No.22 that Noticee No.1 has brought in Rs. 1 crore into the system in October, 2020. Though a sum of Rs. 1 crore was infused in October, 2020 the G value was still negative for March, 2021 ranging between Rs. 66.35 Lakhs to Rs. 88,000. It is not denied by the appellant that the G value was negative as recorded in the tabular column in paragraph No.21 of the impugned order. Second charge is providing exposure beyond T+2+5 days. This charge is also not denied but an explanation is sought to be urged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty imposed in the case of Angel Broking Ltd., and also keeping in view that noticee No.1 is a 'repeat offender', ends of justice would be met by reducing the penalty to Rs. 15 Lakhs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the learned Advocate, in respect of the very same charge, the NSE has imposed a fine of Rs. 2,12,500 and therefore the SEBI could not have imposed any penalty as it amounts to double jeopardy. 7. She further submitted that SEBI has noticed in paragraph No.15 of the impugned order that appellant had brought in Rs. 1 crore during October, 2020 and thereafter appellant's system G was in a positive note. 8. With regard to the second charge, appellant's learned Advocate submitted that due to a bug in the appellant's computer system, the appellant was not able to detect the exact funding made to its clients beyond T+2+5 days. She contended that in any event the excess funding was about Rs. 39 Lakhs. In a similar case In the case of Angel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d noticee has merged with the first Noticee. The first charge against the appellant is that clients' funds have been misused. It is recorded in the impugned order that during the inspection, it was noted that funds of credit balance clients were being utilized for settlement obligation of debit balance clients. In all 41 instances were checked and in 31 instances misutilization was observed ranging between Rs. 88,000 to Rs. 2.48 crores. Some of the instances have been tabulated and reproduced in paragraph No.21 of the impugned order. It is also recorded in paragraph No.22 that Noticee No.1 has brought in Rs. 1 crore into the system in October, 2020. Though a sum of Rs. 1 crore was infused in October, 2020 the G value was still negative for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is Rs. 10 Lakhs. It was argued by Shri Kanade that the orders passed by the Adjudicating authorities cannot be cited as precedents and appellant is a repeat offender. To support this contention, he has placed an order dated September 15, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Office against Noticee No.1. Shri Kanade is right in contending that the allegations against noticee No.1 in that case also included misutilization of clients' funds and securities. But we may hasten to record that SEBI as a Regulator must treat all brokers with even hand. It is not disputed that in the case of Angel Broking where the misutilization of funds was to the extent of Rs. 32.97 crores, the penalty imposed is Rs. 10 Lakhs. In the instant case, as noted in paragrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
