w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n
Mangla Capital Services P. Ltd. v/s Securities and Exchange Board of India
Review Application No.2 of 2007 In Appeal No.59 of 2006
Decided On, 28 November 2007
At, SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
By, CORAM: JUSTICE N.K. SODHI
By, PRESIDING OFFICER
By, ARUN BHARGAVA
By, MEMBER
By, UTPAL BHATTACHARYA
By, MEMBER
Shri Riaz I. Chagla, Advocate with Shri Bharat Merchant, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant. Shri Kumar Desai, Advocate with Shri Anant Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent.
Judgment Text
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
This application has been filed seeking clarification of our order dated 10.8.2007 dismissing Appeal no.59 of 2006. When we dismissed the appeal, we had upheld two findings recorded by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ?the Board?) in its order dated January 31, 2006. The first finding that we upheld was that the appellant had executed two contract notes which was contrary to the circular dated March 31, 1997. The other finding that we affirmed was that the appellant had dealt with one Vinod Agarwal as a sub-broker who was not registered with the Board. We wish to clarify that we did not uphold any other finding recorded by the Board in the order impugned in the appeal. This is clear from the tenor of our order dismissing the appeal. The Board had charged the appellant for aiding and abetting fraudulent and unfair trade practices and also with manipulation and malpractices. For want of sufficient material, the enquiry officer himself had absolved the appellant of these charges and that is why he recommended a minor penalty of censure. It is in this context that we further clarify that the following finding recorded in para 3.2 of the order dated January 31, 2006 had not been affirmed by us.
?MCSL therefore, aided and abetted fraudulent and unfair trade practices and is guilty of manipulation and malpractices and therefore, violated A (3) and (4)
This application has been filed seeking clarification of our order dated 10.8.2007 dismissing Appeal no.59 of 2006. When we dismissed the appeal, we had upheld two findings recorded by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short ?the Board?) in its order dated January 31, 2006. The first finding that we upheld was that the appellant had executed two contract notes which was contrary to the circular dated March 31, 1997. The other finding that we affirmed was that the appellant had dealt with one Vinod Agarwal as a sub-broker who was not registered with the Board. We wish to clarify that we did not uphold any other finding recorded by the Board in the order impugned in the appeal. This is clear from the tenor of our order dismissing the appeal. The Board had charged the appellant for aiding and abetting fraudulent and unfair trade practices and also with manipulation and malpractices. For want of sufficient material, the enquiry officer himself had absolved the appellant of these charges and that is why he recommended a minor penalty of censure. It is in this context that we further clarify that the following finding recorded in para 3.2 of the order dated January 31, 2006 had not been affirmed by us.
?MCSL therefore, aided and abetted fraudulent and unfair trade practices and is guilty of manipulation and malpractices and therefore, violated A (3) and (4)
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
of Code of Conduct as laid down under Schedule II read with Regulation 7 of the Broker Regulations.? The application stands disposed of as above.