2025 (2) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... MDP Legal ORDER Per: Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer This appeal is directed against order dated September 30, 2022, inter alia, imposing penalty of Rs. 30 Lakhs jointly and severally on Noticee Nos.1 and 2 and of Rs. 3 Lakhs against Noticee no.1. 2. We have heard Ms. Rinku Valanju, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vishal Kanade, learned Advocate for the SEBI. 3. Brief facts of the case are, Noticee No.1 is a SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India registered stock broker. The MCX membership of Noticee No.2 has been transferred in favour of Noticee No.1 with effect from October 12, 2020. 4. SEBI conducted a comprehensive inspection of Beeline Broking Ltd. (Noticee No.1) and Beeline Commoditie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 Broking Limited, Adjudication order No.Order /AK/VV/2023-24/26065 dated 28.4.2023, where misutilisation was Rs. 32.97 crores, the SEBI has imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs and therefore, penalty in the instant case is grossly disproportionate. 9. Learned Advocate for appellant next contended that SEBI has placed reliance on Bezel Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. v. NSE Appeal No.294 of 2018 decided on 30.01.2019 to support imposition of penalty. She sought to distinguish the said judgement contending that misutilization of funds was high in that case, which w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecorded 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. 13. The second charge is providing exposure beyond T+2+5 days. This charge is also not denied but an explanation is sought to be urged that appellant was unable to detect the over exposure because of a bug in the computer system. It is also not denied that the over exposure was about Rs. 39.13 Lakhs as described in the table in paragraph No.46. ....