Demat Account Archives

SEBI issues circular for naming / tagging of demat accounts by June 30, 2022

On June 20, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Board of India has issued a circular requiring all stock brokers to name and tag demat accounts of clients by June 30, 2022.

Key points:

All demat accounts of stock brokers which are untagged need to be appropriately tagged by June 30, 2022.
Credit of securities shall not be allowed in any demat account left untagged from July 01, 2022 onwards. Credits on account of corporate actions shall be permitted.
Debit of securities shall also not be allowed in any demat account left untagged from August 01, 2022.
Stock Broker shall obtain permission from Stock Exchanges to allow tagging of such demat accounts from August 01, 2022 onwards. Stock Exchange shall grant such approval within two working days after imposing penalty as per their internal policy.

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

SEBI directs HDFC to deposit Rs 158.68 Crore in Escrow Account in BRH Wealth Kreators case; Penalty of Rs 1 Crore imposed

Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): G. Mahalingam (Whole Time Member) imposed a penalty of Rupees One Crore on HDFC Bank for acting in contravention with the interim order passed by SEBI in BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd.

On 07-10-2019, SEBI had directed BRH to immediately desist from undertaking any activity in the securities market and also prohibited it from disposing of or alienating any assets except with prior permission of NSE and BSE. Further, the depositories and banks were directed not to make debits from the Demat accounts/bank accounts of BRH. Contrary to the aforesaid directions, BRH had availed LAS facility from HDFC by way of pledging securities from two Demat accounts and as on 20-09-2019, the total securities pledged from the said accounts amounted to Rs 158.68 Crore. On 14-10-2019, HDFC had invoked securities pledged by BRH to the extent of Rs 158.68 Crore without giving the requisite notice of 5 days to the clients of BRH, thus, depriving them of a fair opportunity to claim back their securities. It was also alleged that HDFC had failed to exercise due diligence while extending credit facilities to BRH without verifying the net worth vis–a–vis the number of credit facilities extended.

In reply to above-mentioned allegations, HDFC argued that the impugned order of SEBI was bereft of jurisdiction and was an instance of regulatory overreach into the HDFC’s regular banking business. It was contended that a suit praying for a decree of a mandatory injunction for return of the securities on which the pledge was invoked by HDFC Bank was already pending in Calcutta High Court. Hence, the matter pertaining to invocation of the pledge of securities was clearly sub judice before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the High Court, being a higher forum, SEBI ought not to take cognizance of the instant matter till disposal of the proceedings in the said High Court.

The Board, while relying on Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2011) 3 SCC 363, wherein the Supreme Court had held, “whether an order is valid or void, cannot be determined by the parties. For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum” stated that if HDFC’s right to recover its dues from BRH was affected on account of the interim order, it could have approached a court of competent jurisdiction before such conscious avoidance of the said Order. Considering that, the Board held that the invocation of pledge of client securities available in the two Demat accounts of BRH, by HDFC, was not in conformity with the directions contained in the Interim Order. While observing the legal position, SEBI stated, “It is a settled legal position that even if an order is void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion the order is void.”

Consequently, HDFC was directed to deposit an equivalent amount of Rs 158.68 Crore along with interest from 14-10-2019 at the rate of 7% per annum in a separate interest-bearing Escrow Account. It was also held that HDFC had consciously proceeded to defeat the directions in the Interim Order, therefore, a penalty of Rs One Crore was imposed in terms of Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, for non–compliance with the Interim Order. [BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd.–HDFC Bank Ltd., In Re., 2021 SCC OnLine SEBI 7, decided on 21-01-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

SEBI grants limited relaxation to Noticees for inter alia availing benefits of corporate actions during restraint period

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): G. Mahalingam, (Whole Time Member) has granted limited relaxations to the noticee, namely N. Ravichandran, Anita Ravichandran and Hemant Patel, for inter alia availing benefits of corporate actions during the restraint period, dematerializing physical shares and extension of timeline for selling shares lying in the Demat accounts for paying the disgorgement amount to SEBI.

SEBI had passed an order on 05-11-2019, bearing reference number WTM/GM/EFD/DRA-I/43/2019-20 in the matter of KLG Capital Services Limited. Subsequently, another order dated 09-12-2020, bearing reference number WTM/GM/EFD/DRA1/ISD/9769/2020-21 was also passed by SEBI in the said matter.

The Noticees concerned had requested for certain relaxations during the period of restraint from the directions contained in the abovementioned orders. Noticee, Anita Ravichandran, while requesting for extension of timeline further submitted that selling of shares lying in her Demat account to pay the disgorgement amount to SEBI, which was permitted by SEBI to be completed by 12-09-2020, could not be done within the prescribed timeframe due to the delay on part of her broker (HDFC Securities Ltd.) and DP (HDFC Bank Ltd.).

SEBI, while granting certain limited relaxations during the period of restraint to the noticees permitted them to avail the benefits of any corporate action like bonus issues, rights issue etc., that may arise in respect of securities held by them and to dematerialize the securities held by them in physical form and get them credited into their Demat account(s). The noticees were also permitted to dematerialize and receive a credit of those securities in their Demat account(s) which they were entitled to inherit/receive upon transmission. Further, the time limit provided to, Anita Ravichandran and Priyanka Singhvi for completion of sale or liquidation of securities and remitting the proceeds thereof to SEBI under para 2(b) of the Addendum dated 13-08-2020 (WTM/GM/EFD-I/DRA-I/43D/2020-21) was extended to 31-01-2021. Regarding the noticees, Hemant Patel and Hemant Patel HUF, permission to square off any open position held by them in the derivative segment was granted, also these noticees were made free to access and utilize the funds deposited in the bank account (Axis Bank A/c No. 909010042957248) in terms of orders of Securities Appellate Tribunal, issued on 10-11-2009 with a further condition that the funds lying therein should first be utilized for payment of the disgorgement amount and the applicable interest as directed in the SEBI order dated 09-12-2020. [KLG Capital Services Ltd., In Re., 2020 SCC OnLine SEBI 199, decided on 22-12-2020]

Legal RoundUp Tribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

2020 Wrap Up — Flashback of Stories on Consumer Cases

Since 2020 is now winding down, we switch on our flashback mode and note that a lot of changes in the name of ‘new normal’ appeared.

Pandemic impacted everything, be it the normal grocery shopping outlets or the justice delivery system mechanisms.

So reflecting back at some of our best stories on Consumer Cases, here’s our snapshot of the same.

Automobiles

Illegal Delivery

Delivery of vehicle while withholding its original documents: Would it amount to illegal delivery of the vehicle? NCDRC answers

“[F]actum of delivery without documents was illegal per se and certainly a deficiency in service. It is not important nor relevant as to what informal arrangement existed between OP 1 and the complainant.”

[Fauzdar Motors v. Lok Nath Kushwaha, Revision Petition No. 1644 of 2008, decided on 01-12-2020]

Banking & Finance

Liability of Bank Misplacing Documents

ICICI Bank misplaced original Sale Deed of customer: District Forum’s decision of compensation and reconstruction of sale deed — Upheld by NCDRC

“When, by its own admission, (the Bank) lost/misplaced the original document of the Complainants, it should have, on its own, in the normal wont of its functioning, got the document reconstructed, handed over the reconstructed document to the Complainants, with courtesy and apology, as also conducted an internal inquiry to fix responsibility as well as undertaken systemic improvements for future.”

[ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Rajesh Khandelwal, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 12, decided on 12-02-2020]

Stock Traders & Demat Account Holders

If a person carries out trading in shares on an occasional basis by opening a Demat Account, will that person come under the ambit of Consumer? Read NCDRC’s opinion

“If a person engaged in a business or profession other than regular trading in shares, open a Demat Account and occasionally carries out trading in shares, it cannot be said that the services of the broker were hired or availed by him for a commercial purpose, the scale of such trading by a casual investor being very low. Such a person cannot be said to be in the business of buying and selling shares on a regular basis.”

[Vaman Nagesh Upaskar v. India Infoline Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 469, decided on 28-10-2020]

Courier Services

Liability for a Lost Cheque

What is the scope of courier service provider’s liability for a lost cheque? NCDRC considers

“ [I]tems such as currency, bearer cheque, etc. would not be items loss of which would make the company liable to pay any claim arising therefrom.”

[Rikhab Jain v. Trackon Couriers (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 481, decided on 06-10-2020]

Education & Learning

Coaching Classes

Coaching Classes do not fall within the definition of ‘Education Institutions’; Matters of Educational Institutions do not fall under Consumer Forum, decides NCDRC

“Coaching Classes cannot fall within the definition of ‘Education Institutions’.”

“Any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like ‘Coaching Centres’ does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora.”

[Manu Solanki v. Vinayak Mission University, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7, decided on 20-01-2020]

Hospitals & Medical Services

Medical Negligence and Liability of Doctor

[Medical Negligence] No cure is not negligence of doctor; Complainant despite reasonable treatment was not recovering — Doctor not liable for negligence, says NCDRC

“‘No cure is not negligence’ — despite reasonable treatment if there is no improvement.“

[Sunandabai Kisanji Dhole v. Vinod Bele, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 126, decided on 22-06-2020]

Right to Sue for Compensation

On suffering a bad outcome from medical treatment, will a person have an automatic right to sue for compensation? Read NCDRC’s decision

“Just because a person suffers a bad outcome from medical treatment, does not mean that they have an automatic right to sue for compensation.

A medical error is only considered ‘negligent’ if the healthcare practitioner has failed to take ‘reasonable care’.”

[Anil Kumar Gupta v. Banaras Hindu University, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 462, decided on 05-10-2020]

Deficiency in Service by Hospital

Releasing a dead body by a hospital to an unrelated third person unquestionably constitutes ‘deficiency in service’ within the meaning of S. 2(1)(g) & (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

“[R]elease of the dead body of the complainants’ father to some other person, and thereby depriving the complainants of the last rites and cremation and final journey of the deceased, is decidedly deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) & (o) of the Act 1986.”

[Ernakulam Medical Centre v. P.R. Jayasree, First Appeal No. 273 of 2017, decided on 12-03-2020]

Insurance

Motor Vehicle Insurance

If a car is stolen while being insured but temporary registration of car expires, can insurance company escape from its liability of indemnifying loss? NCDRC decides

“Insurance Company after accepting the premium, cannot escape from its liability and repudiate the claim on this technical ground.”

[United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar Godara, Revision Petition No. 1984 of 2015, decided on 11-12-2020]

Movies & Entertainment

Film Promo — Exclusion in Movie — Unfair Trade Practice

Inclusion of a song in promo of a film but excluding it while exhibiting the movie amounts to Unfair Trade Practice & Deficiency

“I fail to understand the logic behind including a song in the promo but excluding it while exhibiting the movie, unless the intention of the producer is to deceive the viewer by making him believe that the song would form part of the movie while knowing it very well that the said song would not be a part of the movie when it is exhibited in cinema halls.”

[Yash Raj Films (P) Ltd. v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 24, decided on 18-02-2020]

Real Estate

Consumer Claim

Can a consumer claim refund of principal amount if flat not delivered on time? NCDRC untangles two fundamentals for Buyer — Consumer

“[F]or an ordinary common Buyer – Consumer, the two fundamentals, which are significant and material (are) the ‘Cost’ i.e. the total cost, read with the schedule of making payment and the ‘Time’ (i.e.) the total time period in which possession would be delivered.”

[Ankur Goyal v. Rise Project (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 465, decided on 14-10-2020]

Delivery of Possession

Builder has to mention the date of delivery of possession in agreement and failure to do so will be read against builder; Homebuyer cannot be made to wait for possession indefinitely

“It was Builder’s duty itself to mention the date of delivery of possession in the agreement and failure to do so necessarily requires to be read against the Builder. In all contingencies, the Buyer could not have been made to wait indefinitely for possession.”

[Adrian Pereira v. Anita Ronald Lewis, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 466, decided on 16-10-2020]

Restaurants & Food Services

Food Served — Defect — Onus to Prove

Consumer alleging of defect in food served in a restaurant will have initial onus to prove that food quality was inferior

“If a consumer complaint is filed alleging some defect in the food served to him in a restaurant the initial onus would be upon consumer to prove that the food served to him was defective or was of inferior quality.”

[Yum Restaurants (India) (P) Ltd. v. Kishan Hegde, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 8, decided on 05-02-2020]

Promotional Offers

Mc Donald’s promotional scheme assuring a prize on every purchase declared as an unfair trade practice: NCDRC compensates with Rs 30,000

“It can only be presumed that the OP facilitating income of the Telecom Company/ service provider by encouraging the customers of Telecom company/ service provider to make use of the services of commercial SMS, will definitely get some benefits out of the increased earnings of the Telecom company/ service provider.”

[Connaught Plaza Restaurants Ltd. v. Kapil Mitra, Revision Petition No. 2731 of 2016, decided on 04-08-2020]

Supermarkets & Consumer Goods

Cosumer Rights

“Discontinue unfair trade practice of arbitrarily imposing additional cost of carry bags at payment counter”: Read NCDRC’s full discussion on Consumer Rights in Big Bazaar matter

“Consumer has the right to know, before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags, and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags.”

[Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) v. Ashok Kumar, Revision Petition No. 975 of 2020, decided on 22-12-2020]

Business News Hot Off The Press News

SEBI issues operational guidelines for Transfer and Dematerialization of re-lodged physical shares

SEBI has fixed March 31, 2021, as the cut-off date for re-lodgment of transfer requests and has stipulated that such transferred shares shall be issued only in Demat mode.

Operational guidelines for crediting the transferred shares into the respective Demat account of the investor, with inputs from stakeholders, are as under:

i. Guidelines to credit the transferred physical shares in Demat mode:

a. Subsequent to processing of the re-lodged transfer request, the RTA shall retain the physical shares and intimate the investor (transferee) about the execution of transfer through Letter of Confirmation. This letter shall be sent through Registered / Speed Post or through email with a digitally signed letter and shall, inter-alia, contain details of endorsement, shares, folio of investor (required on Demat request form) as available on the physical shares.

b. The investor shall submit the Demat request, within 90 days of issue of Letter of Confirmation, to Depository participant (DP) along with the Letter of Confirmation. RTA shall also issue a reminder at the end of 60 days of issue of Letter of Confirmation, informing the investor to submit the Demat request as above.

c. Depository Participant will process the Demat Request on the basis of Letter of Confirmation, as this letter is a confirmation of holding of physical shares on behalf of the investor by RTA.

d. The suggested format of the Letter of Confirmation is given at Annexure – A.

ii. In case of the shares that are required to be locked-in as per the SEBI Circular SEBI/HO/MIRSD/DOS3/CIR/P/2018/139, dated November 06, 2018, the RTA while approving/confirming the Demat request, shall also incorporate/intimate the Depository about the lock-in and its period. Such shares shall be in lock-in Demat mode for 6 months from the date of registration of transfer.

iii. In case of non-receipt of Demat request from the investor within 90 days of the date of Letter of Confirmation, the shares will be credited to Suspense Escrow Demat Account of the Company.

3. Depositories shall;

a) make necessary amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations for the implementation of the above directions, as may be applicable; and

b) bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of their participants and also disseminate the same on their websites.

4. This circular is being issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.

5. The Stock Exchanges are advised to bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of listed companies and also to disseminate the same on their websites.

Read the Circular here: CIRCULAR

Securities Exchange Board of India

[Circular dt. 02-12-2020]

Case Briefs High Courts

Telangana HC | If consequences of an offence are suffered at a different place than the place where offence occurred, which Court will have jurisdiction for trial of case? HC explains

Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ and Vijaysen Reddy, J., observed that

if the consequences of an offence are suffered at a different place, than the place where the offence had occurred, even then the Court where the consequences are suffered would certainly have the jurisdiction to try the case.

Petitioner has filed the habeas corpus writ petitions on behalf of her husband and has prayed that he should be set at liberty.

Detenu is the Chief Executive Officer of Trillion Capital (P) Ltd., Mumbai and is also an Agent/Relationship Manager of the stockbroking firms — Manoj Javeri Stock Broking (P) Ltd. and Conard Securities (P) Ltd. Mumbai.

DEMAT Account

Detenu ad the directors of the said firms assured the complainant that he would receive a high rate of returns over his investment, on believing the assurance of the detenu, the complainant along with his family members and others opened Demat Accounts with different client codes.

Share Trading

Complainant and others, transferred an amount of Rs. 7.19 crores for the purpose of share trading. Further, they also transferred Rs 1.55 crores.

Monies were transferred to the accounts of Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited and Conard Securities Private Limited through their respective bank accounts at Hyderabad. Subsequently, in December 2019, the complainant requested for the redemption of the funds.

On receiving no response from the offenders, the complainant requested for withdrawal of the funds.

Complaint

Later, the Director of Conard Securities (P) Ltd. called the complainant and assured that the withdrawal of payment would start soon. However, the complainant approached the Economic Offences Wing Hyderabad and lodged a complaint.

On investigation, it was found that the amounts invested by the victims, including the complainant were diverted into personal accounts of the detenu and other co-accused instead of investing in share market.

Siphoned off Money

Later it was found that Javeri Stock Broking was declared as a defaulter by SEBI.

The detenu, claiming to be an Agent/Relationship Manager of the above-mentioned companies, had induced hundreds of clients/investors to open share trading accounts with Manoj Javeri Stock Broking Private Limited, by sending fabricated trade statements through Trillion Capital and contract notes.

Later on, he, along with other accused, diverted the funds and siphoned off the money of innocent investors.

Detenu Arrested

Respondent 4 in view of the above arrested the detenu as Sahara Airport, Mumbai and brought him to Hyderabad.

Detenue was remanded to judicial custody.

Hence the writ petitions have been filed.

Analysis and Decision

Supreme Court’s decision in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384, was referred which dealt with the inter-relationship between the three provisions mentioned, i.e. Sections 177, 178 and 179 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Supreme Court’s opinion:

“Section 178 creates an exception to the “ordinary rule” engrafted in Section 177 by permitting the courts in another local area where the offence is partly committed to take cognizance. Also if the offence committed in one local area continues in another local area, the courts in the latter place would be competent to take cognizance of the matter. Under Section 179, if by reason of the consequences emanating from a criminal act an offence is occasioned in another jurisdiction, the court in that jurisdiction would also be competent to take cognizance. Thus, if an offence is committed partly in one place and partly in another; or if the offence is a continuing offence or where the consequences of a criminal act result in an offence being committed at another place, the exception to the “ordinary rule” would be attracted and the courts within whose jurisdiction the criminal act is committed will cease to have exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence.”

(Emphasis added)

Though Sections 178 and 179 CrPC are exceptions to the ordinary rule, merely by being “exception” they do not lose their legal relevance.

In view of the above, Court observed that,

While Section 177 CrPC prescribes the general rule, with regard to the jurisdiction of a Court to try the case, Section 178 and 179 CrPC further bestow power upon different Courts to try an offence, depending on the nature of the offence, the sequence/steps in the commission of the offence and the consequence of an offence.

Hence, if the consequences of an offence are suffered at a different place, than the place where the offence had occurred, even then the Court where the consequences are suffered would certainly have the jurisdiction to try the case.

Further, the Court also added that since many times, an offence may be committed in different areas, since many times, a given offence may have different steps that are required to be taken, Section 178 CrPC deals with such a situation.

Section 181 CrPC deals with the trial of offence of Criminal Breach of Trust.

The above provision bestows a power to try the case upon the Court where the property which was entrusted is required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person.

In the instant case, the money was sent from Hyderabad; the money had to be returned to the complainant at Hyderabad; the transaction had to be accounted for to the complainant at Hyderabad.

Hence, under Section 181(4) CrPC, the Court at Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction to try the case.

Court relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Manubhai Ratilal Patel, stated that while carrying out the remand duty, the Magistrate is not required to hold a mini-trial

Magistrate is required to consider whether the commission of a cognizable offence is mentioned in the FIR or not?

Whether the Police is justified in arresting the accused person or not? Whether the Police requires the continuation of the police custody for the purpose of further investigation or not?

Or whether the accused person should be sent into judicial custody so as to ensure that the accused person would face the trial as and when called for?

Or whether the accused was subjected to torture or not while he was in police custody? Or whether the accused should be set at liberty or not?

In the present case, the FIR was lodged in Hyderabad, which clearly alleged the commission of a cognizable offence. Since part of the cause of action had arisen in Hyderabad, the police force of Telangana was justified in arresting the detenu who was residing in Mumbai, and in bringing him to the State of Telangana for further investigation.

Judicial Custody of the Detenu

Magistrate had remanded the detenu to judicial custody by exercising the power bestowed upon the Magisterial Court.

Hence, judicial custody was a legal one.

No merit was found in the petitions. [Radhika Anil Upadhyaya v. Principal Secy., Home Department; 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1577, decided on 25-11-2020]

Hot Off The Press News

SEBI develops an online system for detecting misuse of clients’ securities by brokers

In the recent past years, it has been observed that some brokers have misused clients’ securities received as collateral to meet their own settlement obligation or obligations of other clients.

Some brokers have also misused clients’ securities by pledging them with the banks and NBFCs to raise funds for their own use. Though the Depositories Act provides for acceptance of client securities as collateral by way of pledge, the collateral of securities is accepted by way of title transfer of securities by brokers. The client providing collateral in the form of securities needs to transfer his securities in the name of the broker and once the securities move out of the demat account of the client, it is not possible for him to keep a track of use/ misuse of those securities by the broker.

A few brokers have been declared defaulter by the Exchange not on account of failure to meet settlement obligation but in failing to meet liabilities/ dues to the clients. The available assets of the broker were found short to meet the clients’ funds and securities obligations. In order to prevent the misuse of clients’ securities by broker, SEBI has taken a number of policy measures including laying down early warning mechanism to detect diversion of clients’ funds and securities, restricting broker to pledge clients’ securities even with the consent of the client, securities to be transferred to Client account or Client Unpaid Securities Account (CUSA) within 24 hours of payout, mapping of Unique Client Code with demat account of the client to detect diversion of payout of securities. SEBI has also directed Clearing Corporations to share client level pay-in and pay-out obligations with Depositories, and Depositories are required to check the corresponding debit or credit in the demat account of client and report mismatches to the Exchanges. This has detected the diversion of clients’ securities received in payout.

SEBI has developed an in – house online system by which it would be able to prepare client level securities holding register of the brokers. SEBI collects the details of the clients’ securities submitted in weekly report filed by brokers with the Exchanges and updates the same with trades conducted in the accounts of said clients using the data available with SEBI in DWBIS as well as data provided by Exchanges, Clearing Corporations and Depositories pertaining to auction trades, corporate actions, SLBM transfers, off-market trades, etc. The securities holding balance computed is matched with the actual clients’ securities holding in the demat account and submission made by the broker for the next day. Any mismatch in data is flagged as an alert for Exchanges.

As such, SEBI has developed the in – house capabilities to online track the movement of client securities collected by broker as collateral and raise alerts with Exchanges if diversion of clients’ securities is noticed. These reports are being generated by SEBI on a weekly basis and three such mismatch reports have already been forwarded to Exchanges for reconciliation with members. This system is likely to timely detect the misuse of clients’ securities collected by brokers as collateral or received in pay-out of securities.

Securities Exchange Board of India

PR No.: 5/2020

[Press Release dt. 13-02-2020]

Key points:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Automobiles

Illegal Delivery

Banking & Finance

Liability of Bank Misplacing Documents

Stock Traders & Demat Account Holders

Courier Services

Liability for a Lost Cheque

Education & Learning

Coaching Classes

Hospitals & Medical Services

Medical Negligence and Liability of Doctor

Right to Sue for Compensation

Deficiency in Service by Hospital

Insurance

Motor Vehicle Insurance

Movies & Entertainment

Film Promo — Exclusion in Movie — Unfair Trade Practice

Real Estate

Consumer Claim

Delivery of Possession

Restaurants & Food Services

Food Served — Defect — Onus to Prove

Promotional Offers

Supermarkets & Consumer Goods

Cosumer Rights

Share this:

Operational guidelines for crediting the transferred shares into the respective Demat account of the investor, with inputs from stakeholders, are as under:

3. Depositories shall;

Share this:

DEMAT Account

Share Trading

Complaint

Siphoned off Money

Detenu Arrested

Analysis and Decision

Judicial Custody of the Detenu

Share this:

Share this:

Popular on scc online blog

MOST COMMENTED