2017 (1) TMI 1647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ("SEBI Act" for short) for violating the provisions contained in the SEBI Act and SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ( "PFUTP Regulations" for short) and Rs. 15 lac under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act for violating the Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers specified under the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 ("Brokers Regulations" for short). 2. Appellant is a registered stock broker and by the impugned order penalty is imposed because, the appellant is found to have indulged in synchronized trades, circular trades and reversal trades in the scrip of M/s. Gangotri Tex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing that the appellant's contribution towards LTP was not much. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded in the impugned order, the AO could not have held that the appellant has aided and abetted other entities in committing LTP variation in the scrip of Gangotri during the investigation period. Thus, the findings recorded in para 32 being mutually inconsistent, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (e) In any event, it is submitted that the trades executed by the appellant being insignificant, it is a fit case for not imposing penalty. Alternatively, it is submitted that after considering all mitigating factors, nominal penalty which this Tribunal deems fit and proper may be imposed on the appellant. 5. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alty of Rs. 1 crore, has imposed penalty of Rs. 15 lac which cannot be said to be unreasonable or harsh. 8. Argument of the appellant that various entities involved in the present case have indulged in such violations repeatedly does not make any difference to the case of the appellant. As noted earlier, the appellant as a registered stock broker ought to have acted as a role model for others. In the present case, the appellant has not only violated PFUTP Regulations, but has also violated Brokers Regulations. In any event, it is an admitted fact that penalty of Rs. 1 crore has been imposed on Shri Purshottam Khandelwal and individual penalty of Rs. 80 lac has been imposed on Cosmo Corporate Services Ltd and Ishita Finstock Ltd., respect....