TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mobile Telecommunications Ltd. (for short the company) from Credit Link Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (for short Credit Link). This purchase was made through the trading system of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) and Porecha Global Securities Pvt. Ltd, the appellant in Appeal No. 164 of 2009 acted as the broker for both the parties. Since the buyer and the seller had a common broker, it was a cross deal. UTI also purchased 14,11,000 shares from Credit Link and Cardioid Securities Pvt. Ltd. using the services of two brokers namely, Jayant Amerchand Kalidas and Arun Porecha, the appellant in Appeal No. 165 of 2009. These were all negotiated deals and the brokers of the buyer and the sellers had executed the trades on the screen of BSE in the price....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at PGSPL has executed trades for UTI by entering into these arranged/matched deals with Jayant Amerchand Kalidas Share and Stock Brokers and by entering into cross deals and structured deals with AP enabled your client's viz. Credit Link Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Cardioid Securities Pvt. Ltd. to off load their shares to UTI. Thus, PGSPL and AP have violated Regulation 4(a)(b) and (c) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 inter-alia.... It was further alleged that the appellants had failed to exercise due skill, care and diligence in the conduct of their business while acting as brokers in the aforesaid deals/trades and thereby violate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the buy and sell orders that were punched into the trading system were as a consequence of a deal negotiated between UTI as the buyer and Credit Link and Cardioid Securities Pvt. Ltd. as the sellers. The negotiated deals were then executed through the trading system by punching in matching buy and sell orders. Merely because matching orders were punched into the system, the Board concluded that the appellants were guilty of violating Regulation 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. We do not think that the Board was right in reaching such a conclusion. Negotiated deals executed through the screen of the stock exchange in the p....