Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra, Member 1. The appellant before us is a stock broker, a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) and registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board). The appellant is aggrieved by the debit note dated September 27, 2011 issued by NSE whereby the appellant has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.1,97,365/- on account of penalty for client code modification for the period August 1, 2011 to August 31, 2011. 2. The said penalty was imposed by the stock exchange in terms of the circular dated July 5, 2011 issued by the Board to all the recognized stock exchanges and conveyed to all the members by NSE by its circular no.653 of July 29, 2011. The circular dated July 5, 2011 issued by the Board inter alia provides that the stock exchanges may allow modification of client codes of non institutional trades only to rectify genuine error in entry of client code at the time of placing/modifying the related order. It also cast a duty on stock excha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member 1. This appeal is filed against an adjudication order passed by the adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) imposing a penalty of Rs.33,00,000/-. The adjudicating officer found the appellant guilty of violation of Regulation 12(1) read with Clause 3.2 of Part A of Schedule I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (PIT Regulations). He also found the appellant guilty of violation of Regulation 12 (2) read with Clause 2.0 of Schedule II of the PIT Regulations. The former related to failure to close the trading window during the period when unpublished price sensitive information was available. The latter related to delay in making disclosure of price sensitive information. The adjudicating officer imposed a penalty of Rs.11,00,000/- for the first violation and a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- for the second violation, thus imposing a total penalty of Rs.33,00,000/-. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra, Member 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated December 26, 2011 passed by the whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) under Section 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the Act) holding the appellant guilty of violating regulations 4(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 read with regulations 4(1), 4(2) (a), (b), (e), and (g) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and restraining the appellant, along with five other entities, from accessing the securities market and prohibiting them from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, for a period of one year. 2. The facts of the case, in bri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member 1. Challenge in this appeal is against imposition of a penalty of Rs.12 lacs on the appellant under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and 23H of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as SEBI Act and SCRA respectively). The adjudicating officer found the appellant guilty of violating regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (FUTP Regulations for short) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India notification G.S.R.219(E) dated March 2, 2000 read with sections 16 and 18 of the SCRA. For the former violation a penalty of Rs.7 lacs and for the latter a penalty of Rs.5 lacs (totaling Rs.12 lacs) was imposed by the adjudicating officer. 2. The appellant is the erstwhile promoter of M/s. Hit Kit Global Solutions Limited (HKGS). HKGS was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P.K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated December 30, 2011 passed by the whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (the Board) confirming the ad-interim ex parte order dated September 21, 2011 thereby directing the appellant and some other entities not to issue equity shares or any other instrument convertible into shares or alter their capital structure in any manner till further direction in this regard. The prayer in the appeal is for setting aside the order and pending final decision, to stay the operation of the impugned order. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. The allegations against the appellant and other entities relate to manipulations using GDR issues. The impugned order has been passed by the Board after considering the reply of the appellant and after granting them personal hearing. The matter is still at the investigation stage and it may not be appropriate for us to express ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
P. K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated November 29, 2011 passed by the adjudicating officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) imposing a penalty of Rs.5 lacs on the appellant under Section 15HB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for violating clauses 1.2 and 3.2-3 in Part A of Schedule I prescribing the Code of Conduct for the companies under Regulation 12 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (for short the Regulations). 2. The appellant before us is company secretary of Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (the company) since the year 2000 and was also designated as the compliance officer of the company with effect from August 10, 2001 for the purposes of the said Regulations. Investigations carried out by the Board revealed that the company considered acquisition of Maytas Infra Limited and Maytas Properties Limited in its meeting held o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Per : P. K. Malhotra, Member (Oral) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated January 11, 2011 passed by the whole time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) confirming the direction issued against the appellant vide ex-parte ad interim order dated July 11, 2011. When the Board passed ex-parte ad interim order dated July 11, 2011 prohibiting the appellant to act as a syndicate member/sub-syndicatemember for the forthcoming issues till further directions, the appellant had approached this Tribunal. The Appeal no. 175 of 2011 filed by the appellant was disposed of vide our order dated November 16, 2011 as under:- “This appeal is directed against an order dated July 11, 2011 passed by the whole time member pending investigations, inter alia, restraining the appellant from acting as a syndicate member/subsyndicate member for all the forthcoming public issues until further orders. The primary grievance of the appellant at this stage is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we order as under: In paragraph 3 of this Tribunal’s order in Appeal no.188 of 2011 dated 9.1.2012 the following two sentences stand deleted. “Confronted with this statement of the appellant the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that this point is not pressed since the facts of the case show that Rishabh was registered as a subbroker on the NSE. The learned counsel for the respondent would accept the position of law as enunciated by the Delhi High Court in National Stock Exchange Members vs. Union of India and Others 2006 (133) Company Cases 504 and would admit that multiple registration is not necessary.” In place of the above the following is substituted: “During the course of hearing Counsel for Applicant Mr. Kumar Desai submitted that since the order and judgement of the Delhi High Court passed in National Stock Exchange Members vs. Union of India and Others 2006 (133) Company Cases is under...
Tag this Judgment!