https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766203 Misuse of clients' funds and funding or exposure beyond T+2+5 days were upheld because the record showed client funds were used to meet other settlement obligations and the over-exposure was not denied. The charge of non-issuance of contract notes was not sustained, as no legal requirement was shown to require regular proof of delivery of contract notes. On penalty, the tribunal applied proportionality, comparing the misconduct and the penalty structure in a reference matter, and found the sanction excessive. The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty, while the first two findings remained intact. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:52:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766203 Misuse of clients' funds and funding or exposure beyond T+2+5 days were upheld because the record showed client funds were used to meet other settlement obligations and the over-exposure was not denied. The charge of non-issuance of contract notes was not sustained, as no legal requirement was shown to require regular proof of delivery of contract notes. On penalty, the tribunal applied proportionality, comparing the misconduct and the penalty structure in a reference matter, and found the sanction excessive. The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty, while the first two findings remained intact. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766203