BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI

      Appeal No.109 of 2012 

      Date of decision: 20.11.2012  

M/s. Bharat J. Patel
3/3A, Churchgate House,
st Floor, 32/34, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai – 400 001. … Appellant

Versus  

Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondent

Mr. P. N. Modi, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.R. Bhonsale, Advocate for the Appellant.
Dr. (Mrs.) Poornima Advani, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM : P. K. Malhotra, Member & Presiding Officer ( Offg. )
S. S. N. Moorthy, Member

Per : P. K. Malhotra (Oral)

The  appellant  before  us  is  a  stock  broker  registered  with  the  Securities  and  

Exchange Board of India. It is a trading member of the Bombay Stock Exchange.

2. The Board carried out investigations in the scrip of M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd.
   (the company) for the period from November 8, 2000 to February 6, 2001 and
   February 7, 2001 to May 8, 2001 and found that the promoters/promoter related
   entities transferred their shares through off market spot transactions to the stock
   brokers, including the appellant before us, and their related entities for raising finance
   and thereafter received back those shares in the market transactions in
   synchronized/structured trades. The Board came to the conclusion that while
   indulging in these trades, the appellant failed to maintain the higher standards of
   integrity expected of it in the conduct of its stock broking business and, therefore, the
   Board held the appellant guilty of contravening the provisions of regulation 4(b) and 2
   (d) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and
   Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995 and Clauses
   A(1) and (4) of the Code of Conduct specified for the stock brokers under the
   Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations,
3. By the impugned order dated April 24, 2012, the Board suspended the
   certificate of registration of the appellant for a period of one week. While admitting the
   appeal, the operation of the impugned order was stayed by our order dated May 14,
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. In an identical
   situation in respect of the same scrip and for the same investigation period, we have
   passed an order in the case of M/s. Prashant J. Patel, [Appeal no. 108 of 2012 decided
   on 12.11.2012] wherein we have upheld the findings of the whole time member of the
   Board. However, the order of suspension of licence of the appellant for a period of one
   week was modified to that of warning to the appellant to be cautious in future.
5. For the reasons stated by us in our order in the case of M/s. Prashant J. Patel
   (supra), we uphold the findings of the Board in the impugned order against the
   appellant and hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, warning to the
   appellant to be cautious in future would meet the ends of justice in this case also.
   The appeal stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs. Sd/- P. K. Malhotra Member & Presiding Officer ( Offg. ) Sd/- S.S.N. Moorthy Member </code></pre></li>

20/11/2012
Prepared & compared by-ddg