Live
- 3-judge Special Bench of SC to hear today pleas against Places of Worship Act
- MP CM to lay foundation stone for Rs 1,700 crore Sondwa irrigation project in Alirajpur
- Garena Free Fire MAX Redeem Codes for December 12, 2024 – Get Free Rewards
- Vinay Kumar Yaragani’s Strategies to Reduce Unpaid Transactions in E-Commerce
- Telangana: Thieves Rob Three Shops in Armor Town, Nizamabad
- Actor flayed for attack on journalists
- On completion of one year, Bhajan Lal govt in Rajasthan to hand over 15,000 job letters
- Survey process at a brisk pace
- Direct flight between Delhi, Rajahmundry from today
- Congress govt stands by poor: MLA
SAT sets aside SEBI order restraining IIFL Securities from taking new clients
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has set aside the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)’s order restraining IIFL Securities from taking new clients for a period of two years, and has reduced the penalty imposed on the brokerage firm to Rs 20 lakh from Rs 2 crore.
New Delhi: The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has set aside the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI)’s order restraining IIFL Securities from taking new clients for a period of two years, and has reduced the penalty imposed on the brokerage firm to Rs 20 lakh from Rs 2 crore.
SAT in an order issued on December 7 said "there has been no misuse of client funds and by wrongly considering the non-funded portion of the bank guarantee as per the 2016 circular, an attempt has been made out to show that there was a misuse of client funds which, in our opinion, is patently erroneous".
The SAT also said: "On account of the aforesaid, the direction of the WTM debarring the appellant under the Intermediaries Regulations from taking new client for a period of two years cannot be sustained."
The tribunal in its order also reduced the penalty imposed on the brokerage from Rs 1 crore to Rs 20 lakh. On the penalty of Rs 1 crore imposed on the brokerage under Section 23D of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA), the SAT order stated: "Since we have already held that there is no misuse of the clients' funds and since there is no failure on the part of the appellant to segregate monies of the client nor monies of the client have been misused by the appellant for its own purposes, no penalty under Section 23D of the SCRA could be imposed."
