BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No. 72 of 2011
Date of decision: 09.06.2011 Bubna Stock Broking Services Ltd.
4, Fairlie Place, 6 th Floor,
Room No. 610,
Kolkata – 700 001.
…… Appellant
Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
…… Respondent
Mr. Vinay Chauhan, Advocate for the Appellant.
Dr. Mrs. Poornima Advani, Advocate with Ms. Amrita Joshi, Advocate
for the Respondent.
CORAM :
Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member
Per : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through
the record. The appellant is a stock broker who had been operating on the Calcutta
Stock Exchange. It executed synchronized and matching trades on behalf of the clients
where it was the broker for both sides. Not only did the clients through the appellant
execute matching trades but they also reversed their trades in the course of trading.
Obviously, these were artificial trades and the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has not seriously disputed this aspect. When investigations were conducted
in the scrip of Sangotri Constructions Ltd., the appellant was served with summons to
furnish some information which it failed to furnish as a result whereof the
investigations were thwarted. The adjudicating officer in the impugned order has
found the appellant guilty on all these counts and the findings have not been seriously
disputed. All that the learned counsel for the appellant has contended is that during
2
the period of investigation, several scrips were investigated and the erring
intermediaries and market players were proceeded against and that the other
adjudicating officers have imposed, in similar circumstances, lesser amounts of
penalty on those delinquents. He has referred to two orders which pertain to the
appellant though the scrip is different. We have gone through those orders and find
that the appellant is not a first time offender. It has been executing similar trades in
other scrips as well and thereafter it has not been complying with the summons issued
to it. Being a chronic offender, we do not find any reason to reduce the amount of
penalty levied by the impugned order. A total of Rs.7.5 lacs has been imposed as
penalty for the various wrongs committed by the appellant. If at all, the adjudicating
officer has erred by imposing penalty on the lower side and we do not find any ground
to reduce it further. As already observed, the findings recorded in the impugned order
have not been seriously disputed before us.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
Justice N. K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer
Sd/-
S.S.N. Moorthy
Member 9.6.2011
prepared and compared by-ddg