BB 037 463

FEB 2O2I

In the matter ofUnder theNational Stock

Before theAM NO:

sole Arbitrato . Pramod VaNSEPUN/27 19-2OlARB

Rul

Between

Shraddha Kale

(Constituent)

Flat No C-301, Crystal Castle,

Singhgad Road, Near Manas SocietY,

Dhayri, Vadgaon BK, Pune: 411041

And

Sharekhan Ltd

(Trading Member)

l Oth Floor Beta Building Lodha Ithink T

Off. Jvlr Opp. Kanjurmarg Railway Stati

Mumbai - 4OOO42

Chetan Deshmukh

(Authorised Person)

5-6, Samruddhi Heights,

S.No. 60 I I, Siddhivinayak Soc. Dalvi V )

Near Viva Sarovar, Dattanagtr - Jambh

Ambegaon Khurd, Pune 411046

Applicant:

Nandy and

present.

...Applicant

...Respondent 1

no CampuS,

Kanjurmarg (East),

...Respondent 2

adi Road,

Hearing was held on February 21 2O2 t 11:OO am

The following parties were present:

Applicant was absent. Au d representative, Mr Surojit

Mr. Sagar Kale along with A te Mr. Paritosh Oswal were

Respondent 1

with Advocates

(R1): Mr. Kunal Koth uthorized representative along

Mr. Anand Pai and Adv. Sharma were Present.

Respondent 2 lR2lz Mr. Chetan Desh

Rutvij Solanki were Present.

h, along with his Advocate Mr.

1. At the outset, the parties were inform

will be restricted to Account openlng

Citations of earlier awards etc. will no

facts of the referred cases are m

arbitration, as it is beYond the sco

call for and verify the facts of the refe

or otherwise of the references. The p

on the written and oral submi

respondents as far as the sarrre

documentary evidences produced be

averments, conclusions etc., exp

respondents in their written or oral

relevant documentary proof submitt

considered by this arbitration.

Summary of written submission by the

2. Tine applicant is an individual h

husband Mr. Sagar Kale through ref

friend. R2 projected that he has

markets and shall be able to Pro

products and guide the applicant an

of securities and generate high ret

transparent and secure systems, effe

etc. Applicant and Persuaded aPP

depository account with Rl through

3. Applicant was made to sign blank

her PAN card Aadhar card and a

documcnts for oPening the acco

physical copy of KYC to the applican

4. Applicant was allotted client code

account no.IN3O051 and DP id 8327

5 lacs to her trading account opened

26th June 2018. Applicant informed

that the scoPe of Arbitration

d transactions in the account.

be considered unless all the

e available to the Present

of the present arbitration to

nces to decide on the merits

sent arbitration will be based

ions of the aPPlicant and

are supported bY relevant

re the arbitration. OPiniclns,

sed by the aPPlicant and

submissions, not backed bY

to this arbitration will not be

pplicant:

sewife. R2 met aPPlicant's

ence of Dr. Nikam a comrnon

und knowledge of financial

ide services for all financial

her husband with right choicc

rns. R2 spoke highlY of Rl's

tive risk management sYstems

cant to open a trading and

2theAPofRl.C and applicant gave coPies of

celled cheque as supporting

. Applicant failed to Providc

08099 by Rl and dePository

8. Applicant transferred Rs.

under the above client code on

that funds transferred were

only Ibr long term investment and she

or tra,de in risky F&O positions' Applic

he ceLn speak to her husband while d

invest and then finally take her approv

this she became very busY and did no

stock market investment.

5. Points number 13 to 16 of Statemen

acceptable d.ocumentary evidence or

of the same. APPlicant has claimed

severral trading accounts of people kn

accruals in her trading account an

Fraudulent feedback bY R2 made

ad no intention to short sell

t communicated to R2 that

scussing stocks on which to

to do the transactions. After

get much time to allocate for

of Case , are unsupPorted bY

ere is disPute about veracitY

f gross misconduct bY R2 in

wn to her and that Dr. Nikam

ciencies claimed bY her in thc

supported bY any accePtable

the feedback Provided bY R2.

he applicant believe that thc

a common friend through whose r mmendations about R2, thc

trad:ing accounts were oPened but t ere are no specific instances

that can be verified by this arbitratio . Applicant's allegation about

Shield.ing of R2 by R1 and various de

fllaxLagement practices of Rl are no

evidence.

6. Applicant has claimed that she sent legal notice to Rl because shc

was fed up with false assurances lack of progress. The noticc

clairns, inter alia, that applicant ex

R2 based on dailY feedback bY R

ted trades with R1 through

executed on behalf of the aPPlic

who confirmed dailY trades

t and reported good Profits.

Sometime in July the applicant noti d major discrePancies in thc

applicant was making good Profits d led her to continue trading'

It was further claimed that R2 has in ulged in unauthorised trading,

misappropriation of funds, misrepre ntation of facts and breach of

contract by providing falsified feed ck of the trading activitY being

carried out in the account. The no ice claimed reimbursement of

and Rs.200,000 towardsRs.370,000 plus interest @I8o,

connpensation and costs.

On 14th August she has received it of Rs. 120,541 the remaining

shc wished to withdraw aftcr

uct by R2.

credit balancc in hcr account whic7.

fearing further alleged gross miscon

8. To summarise the applicant has cl

unauthorised- transactions which re

account. The applicant has also claim

huge brokerage totalling 1.47 lakhs

her aLccount in the nature of F&O tra

d,uring the entire trading Rlhas nev

nor provided any trade confirmation

the erpplicant. Rl failed to provide

to the applicant which the applicant

of signing KYC. The applicant has alle

law rsectton 4.4 without giving any evl

She has also quoted SEBI circulars

grouLnds for her claim of violation

circular requiring R 1 and R2

confirmations and make these avai

dispute. Her specific claim in this

conlirmation was obtaincd bY R I

mandated under the BYe-laws of the

9. The applicant has claimed several

affairs in R 1 and R2 but has not sub

and in anY case, it is beYond t

Communications between Rl an

operation of vclice logger system sh

operation during the entire Peri

applicant was oPerational.

10. The applicant, along with othe

complaint with the Police on 30th

progress of the sarne has been given

The applicant has requested

submit following documents:

A. IffC documents, Account oPeni

med that R2 has executed

Ited in huge losses in her

that R1 and R2 have earncd

unauthorised transactions in

es. The aPPlicant claims that

ever provided any Pay-outs

ls or any verification calls to

statement in PhYsical mode

ad. even requested at the timc

d violation bY R 1 of NSE BYe

ence to suPPort he allegation '

thout mentioning anY sPecific

Rl of the same excePt thc

maintain Pre-transaction

le to the aPPlicant in case of

respect is that no Pre-tradc

d R2 from the aPPlicant as

change.

apses in the management of

itted any supPorting evidencc

e scope of this arbitration.

R2 about installation and

that voice logger was not tn

the trading account of the

investors have filed a criminal

August,2oIg but no further

in the application.

arbitration to instruct R1 to

form signed by the aPPlicant.

B. Duly executed and signed risk ment documents, roles and

responsibility documents and other

SEBI mandate.

C. Pre-trade confirmations

D. Ledger transaction report and contr

E. Tripartite and Bipartite agreements

F. Int.ernal investigation report

G. Investigation rePort bY NSE

isclosure documents as Per

ct notes

11. The applicant has PraYed for di ting R 1 to paY he a sum of

p.a. from 26tn June 2018 toRs.3|ZO,OOO and interest thereon @IB

the d.ate of actual realisation of paym

prayed that R 1 an R2 be directed to

nt. The apPlicant has further

y the brokerage amount of

147,(100 as refund of brokerage earn

towards cost.

from her and pay Rs. 50,000

Summary' of written submission by Rl:

12. R t has claimed that the SEBI ci

is not applicable to the present case ause. inter alia, it is covered

under exception for technical glitch p ided for in the said circulan:

and in support of the claim communi tions between Rl and servicc

system was non-oPerationalprovider showing that the voice 1o

during the entire tenure of the tr ding in the account of thc

applicant.

13. Rl has further Pointed out that in the legal notice sent bY thc

appJlicant to R I , the applicant has bro dly laid her claim on following,

a) applicant received feedback/ cuments received from R2

was making profits,which led her to believe that sh

b) trades to be executed were co

R2 and R2 confirmed the said

unicated by the aPPlicant to

ades over phone,

c) R2 provided fudged and mi leading feedback to inducc

her accottnt,applicant to continue trading i

di) R I failed to exercise due dilige

loss of Rs.37O,0OO/ -.

ular dated 22"d March, 2018

ce and the aPPlicant suffered

14. The claim filed bY the aPPlican

entirely different footing of violation

confirmations by Rl which strongly s

by the applicant now is only an a-fter-

15. The trading account of the applic

due process and the aPPlicant ma

derivatives segment for which all post

alerts and contract notes, bills detaili

been sent to the mobile number

applicant in the oPening form- A

shows that the instructions to trad

applicant to R2 but she also acquiesc

16. Rl has also submitted audio fil

conversation dated 28th June 2OI8

husband where in Mr. Sagar Kale,

clearly confirmed having given speci

and has also confirmed the balance

account of the applicant and has fu

trade confirmations from R 1 .

R t has denied all sPecific alleg

and has made a counter claim of

raising a dispute after making part i

of Rl violating the SEBI guidelines

trade confirmations, by the applicant

friends entitling R1 to make counter c

suffered bv R1 and interest on the sai

are claimed on account of actions

making defamatory statements and

domain causing business loss an

monetary pay-outs neither due nor

the applicant along with Dr. Nikam z

17.

Nikam.

-- T--

with

SEBI

eStS

the arbitration is on

circular on pre-trade

that the reason given

ought.

t was opened after following

e her investments in F&O

rade confirmations like SMS

margins and MTM etc. have

d email id provided bY thc

perusal of the legal noticc

were not only given bY the

to the same.

and transcript of telePhonic

tween R1 and the aPPlicant's

sband of the applicant had

c trading instructions to R2

f Rs.3,O3 lacs in the trading

r confirmed receiPt of all Post

tions made by the aPPlicant

sinister modus oPerandi, of

vestment by raising the issuc

n maintaining record of Pre-

along with Dr. Nikam and his

im of Rs. 19,00,000 for losses

amount @I8% p.a. The losses

of the applicant and others

isparaging remarks in Public

to coerce R 1 into making

vable to the claimant etc. of

d other investor friends of Dr.

18. At the end of arbitration heari g R1 sought permission to

present complete set of Client Regis tion Form/KYC documents

downloaded from KYC depository as

a) That the applicant has clearlY

Summary of written submission bY R2:

20. R2 has claimed non-application

f vorce logger system was non-functio

transactions and even for longer

personal efforts to follow up with se

b)

dence of two main points:

iven preference to receive

communications from Rl on the mo

id of her husband Sagar Kale.

ile phone number and email

Bank statement submitted bY aPPl t showed an entry datcd

17tt' May, 2018 for National cleari system debit of Rs. 4000 for

amount paid by cheque to some b rage firm.

RI has claimed that the transfer f Rs. 4000 evidences that thc

applicant was into equity trading/i vestments even before shc

opened a trading account with Rl. applicant then sought time

to respond to this specific claim and as permitted time up to 10th

February , 2021 to submit a written re

19.

f arbitration agreement to R2

as he was never a party to the arbitrati n agreement by the aPPlicant

and R 1 . R2 has claimed that the appli ant is estopped from making

any claims against R2 due to suppre ion of material facts without

specifying the suppressed facts. Su quently R2 has specified the

material facts suppressed to be the f that the technical difficultY

about telephone landline not being o rational. R2 has claimed that

orised trade took place in herif the case of the applicant that unau

trading account, she should have tioned the dates on which

purported unauthorised trades were

by applicant in her legal notice to Rl

the trades made in her account. R2

SEBI circular on maintaining plete record of Pre-trade

confirmations by R2 is not applicabl as the land line of R2's officc

arried out. Statements madc

shows that she was aware of

has claimed that violation of

for the entire tenure of thc

time, despite R1/R2 taking

ice providers for setting right

d voice logger arrangements.the faults in the telephone sYstem

This technical difficulty was made kn

Dr. Ganesh Nikam. R2 has claimed

present claim of the aPPlicant

unauthorised is only an after-thought

mentioned in the legal notice sent to

2I. R2 has also made other claims

Nikam in starting the trading relatio

other friends but these a-re not cons

supported by any documentarlr evide

proved or disproved as part of this ar

22. R2 has denied all allegations

claimed that all trades were carrie

applicant.

23. Applicant's resPonse to the

by Rl at the end of hearing:

The applicant's written response to Rl's

Rs.4000 paid to a broker in her account th

with equity trading, shows clearly that th

instalment of SIP investment in mutual

for R I's claim that the applicant was well

24.

Based

issues

parties

issues.

Oral discussions during the h

on the written submissions bY the t

appear to need clarification and fu

were given copies of the s€une an

Summary of the discussion is give

Did applicant act as a reasonablY P

opening form Blank/blind as clai

lt was very difficult for this arbitrator

R2 at all any reasonablY Prudent

and KYC documents blank/blindl

submission the apPlicant was once

wn to the apPlicant and lorat the entire basis of thc

scd on all trades bcing

as the same ground was not

1 under copy to R2.

bout the part PIaYed bY Dr.

ship with the applicant and

ered here as these are not

ce at all and can neither be

tration hearing.

ade by applicant and has

out on instructions of thc

tional evidence submitted

taim. that based on debit of

applicant was well conversant

payment was made towards

ds. There is thus no ground

ersed in equity trading.

parties to dispute following

ther focussed discussion. The

asked to respond to sPecific

below:

dent person at all in signing

o believe that without knowing

son would sign oPening form

as claimed. To confirm hcr

in asked to confirm that her

action was considered by her as prud nt. In response the applicant

confirmed that the opening forms signed blank/blindly and

also added that her husband Mr.

accountant and was advising her in tout that her claim would not be c

agar Kale was a chartered

e matter. It was then pointcd

applicant was assisted by or repre nted by her husband a

professional 'Chartered Accountant at all times. While the

R2 as an assistance to thc

signed the application as

to be operating the account

application form was filled in by thapplicant, the Applicant would ha

advised by her husband who ap

for all practical purposes.

25. It was also pointed out to the pplicant that as per opening

formlKYc documents the mobile mber and email id of her

communication and he hashusband were given for all electroni

received atl post trade confirmatio s. The claim made by thc

such communication wouldapplicant of not having received an

also not be sustainable.

26. R 1 . Pointed out that the appli t was given electronic access

to her trading account secured by word and could have checkcd

right from day 1 but did nottransactions in her account anv tim

choose to do so till 23,d .Julv. On this ate the applicant had logged

of alleged unauthorised

the email id or mobile phone

se of complaints to report for

into the account and was aw

number specifically given for the pu

unauthorised transactions and/or to top further operations in the

account. On this dav her account ce was already down to

Rs.3,O0,OO0 and she could have sen to withdraw it or stop

further operations till he alleged sus cion was addressed by R2 or

Rl.

27. The applicant was asked to confi m if the applicant had logged

uly and the applicant has

nsidered sustainable as thc

transactions but did not contact R1 o

into the

confirmed

trading account on 23'a

having accessed her acco t based on password given for

such access. Applicant claimed that s e was in contact with R2 for

getting d,etails and or for making recti tions etc.

28. Did RIIR2 comPlete the accou opening process including

collected from the APPlicant?

diligence carried out basedscrutiny of KYC and Profile informatio

29 . R 1 was asked to comment on du

processing any transactions till pre-

R2lR1?

3 1 . It was Pointed out to R 1 that R

voice logger system installed on lan

15l12l2017 was not working since

be unavailable for next 73 daYs as

R 1 / R2 were specifically asked as to

decided that all brokers shall execute

keeping evidence of the client placing

alia. in the form of:

a. Physical record written & sign

b. Telephone recording,

on the information given in the openi g form and KYC documents.

Rl claimed that regular due diligence is carried out before oPening

all accounts. The apparent anomali s in the profile information

given by the applicant are explained b the fact that Mr. Sagar Kale

was to operate the account for all p ctical purpose as his mobilc

phone number and email id was gi en by the aPPlicant for all

electronic and telephonic communlca on from Rl and R2.

30. Did Rl and his AP violate the S BI instructions regarding not

were made by RIIR2 to ensure com liance with SEBI circular on

maintaining record of pre-trade tran ction confirmations? Relevant

para of circular quoted below was sh wn to Rl and R2

StrBI circular CIR/ HO IMIRSDi MIRSD2/

2017

RIP l2OlU 108 SePtember 26,

To further strengthen regulatory provision against un-auth ortzed trades

and also to harmonise the requirements ross markets, it has now been

de confirmation was held bY

had full knowledge that thc

line number given bY R2 on

l02l2018 and continued to

r email dated 07 I 08 I 2018.

at alternative arrangements

trades of clients onlY after

such order, it could be, inter

c. Email from authortzed email

by client,

d. Log for internet transactions,

e. Record of SMS messages,

f. Any other legally verifiable reco

32. It was brought to the notice of R

maintaining record of confirmations

they have chosen not to exercise an

appears very clear that R1/R2 were i

guidelines and that the award will ce

for appropriate action to be taken by

inly merJ<e note of the same

E/ SEBI.

33. R2 Had stated that his landlines were non-operational during

the relevant period as the lines were

pointed out that the address

correspondence for the faulty landlin

was different from the office address

aten by rats. The applicant

the phone actually was of his broth but was used bv him for

business purpose. R2 claimed that the ailure of landline was known

to the applicant. It was pointed out to that that the call recording

facility could not have been opera ional for a long time and

alternative arrangements for complyi g with SEBI circular do not

appea-r to have been made at all by R

34. Both R 1 and R2 maintaine that SEBI circular: was

inapplicable in the case because the

transactions to be unauthorised in

pplicant had not claimed the

legal notice preceding the

arbitration application and inclusion

transactions in her trading account

after-thought.

lR2 ttnt several options for

ere available to R I / R2 but

of these options and so it

gross violation of the SEBI

entioned on the BSNL

phone number given by R2

f R2 and R2 responded that

Conclusions:

35. From the written submissions

clarifications it appears reasonably cl

gross and total violation of the SEBI ci

StrBI circular CIR/HO IMIRS

September 26,2OI7To further strengthen regul

autttorrzed trades ernd also to harmo

markets, it has now been decided th

trades of clients only after kee

placing such order, it could be, inte

a. Physical record written & signed

b. Telephone recording,

c. Email from authorized email id,

d. Log for internet transactions,

e. Record of SMS messages,

f. Any other legally verifiable record.

When dispute arises, the burden

produce the above records for the

36. Rl and R2 have failed to pr

transaction confirmation because the

record at least for the trading accoun

permitted by SEBI for complying with

abundantly clear that R I and R2 hav

SEBI guidelines on maintaining pre

any of the six modes at least for the pe

Their contention about technical glit

availability of such records is compl

awareness of the faulty landline of R

at all as the responsibility for compli

the broker and not the client.

ofpdispu

and oral arguments and

ar that R 1 / and R2 were in

cular quoted below:

/MrRSD2 I CrR I P I 2Or7 I 1 08

ory provlslons agalnst tln-

ise the requirements across

t all brokers shall execute

evidence of the clienta)ta, in the form of:

client,

f will be

d trades.

on the broker to

ce even a single pre-trade

have never maintained any

of the applicant, in any form

he instructions of SEBI. It is

been in gross violation of thc

ransaction confirmations in

covered by this arbitration.

h being responsible for non-

ly unacceptable. Applicant's

has no bearing on this case

ce of SEBI circular is that of

37. Even though the insistence on

trade transaction confirmations by the

thought, Rl and R2 are still bound tburden of proof is clearly theirs as per

38. It is altogether different matter

guidelines by Rl/R2 have caused any

of allegedly unauthorised transactions

the present case this doesn't appear

applicant has failed to exercise minrmu

of a common person and has permitte

trading account and has suppressed t

arbitration.

39. Applicant's claim of signing o

very doubtful as no previous knowl

Applicant was assisted by her husb

signed the documents at his instan

practice in India. Applicant claims to

but completely failed to take minimu

with a completely unknown person li

40. The application form appears

consultation with Mr. Sagar Kale who

qualified chartered accountant an

conversant with equity market. In

mentioned in the opening form but ithas been then given in the form. His

and email id is given for electronic

with R 1 / R2 and he has confirmed ha

28th June, within two days of fundi

applicant, for confirmation of placeme

F&O segment and the account bal after the execution of thc

roducing the record of pre-

applicant is clearly an after-

produce the record as the

e said SEBI circular.

whether violation of SEBI

s to the applicant becausc

n her trading account and in

be the case at all because

care and diligence requircd

her husband to operate thc

is fact in her application for

ing forms in blank/blind isge about R2 is reportcd.

and she appears to have

as is a common enough

first time investor in equities

of precaution while dealing

R2.

to have been filled in. in

is a practicing professionally

can be presumed to be

ct, initially his name was

was cut and his wife's narnc

rsonal mobile phone number

d telephonic commLtnication

ing received call from R I on

g of trading account of the

t of specific trading orders in

orders and he has very clearly confi

applicant that the call could not be ac

date her father-in-law was admitted

surgery is unacceptable because the

clear and unambiguous about accep

applicant's husband. He has made no

under which he has now claimed

communication and in any case the co

the trades in the account were with

authorised by him on behalf of the

also received all the electronic commu

fully aware about the transactions in

claims non receipt of any communicat

termed as a half-truth and at worst a

she had not received any post transa

from Rl lacks merit.

41 . The applicant's contention that

consulted but final approval for trade

her is not tenable because she had n

phone number for contact but had

phone number. By very nature mobil

the person of the owner who is likely tnecessarily going to be near the appli

from her after consultation of her h

Indian context for husbands to man

wives especially if the husband is

Accountant.

42. Applicant's confirmation of h

account on 23'a July show that

transactions in the account now claim

This is further borne out by the fact

served by her on R 1 she did not clai

had not author:ised any of the transa

ed both. The plea by the

upon because on the sarne

hospital for a major heart

ranscript of the call is very

ance of information by thc

ention of the circumstances

inability to act upon thc

versation clearly shows that

is knowledge and thereforc

plicant. Mr. Sagar Kale has

ications and must have been

e account. If the applicant

ns from Rl it can at best be

eliberate lie. Her claim that

ion confirmations, calls etc.

ile her husband could bc

must be obtained only from

r given her landline/mobilc

iven her husband's mobile

phones are to be carried on

be working and therefore not

ant for taking final approval

sband. It is not unusual in

e financial affairs for thcir

also a qualified Chartered

ving accessed her trading

he was well aware of the

d to be 'Unauthorised by her'.

that even in the legal noticc

that she was unaware of or

ions in her trading account.

43. From the KYC documents. it isgiven her husband's mobile number

communication and post confirmati

contract notes have been addresse

applicant's husband regularly. This ibeen deliberately suppressed by the a

44. In point 23 of Statement of Ca

was never ever informed about losses

the unauthorised trades. Neither

responsibility to inform Applicant abo

45. In point 29 of Statement of Case,

the entire tenure of trading (Lasting

provided any pay-outs nor provided

any verification calls to the applicant.

confirmations. An audio recording sub

confirmation calIl s was/were made.

There are very clear anomalies in the profile

Applicant as follows:

Q: Have you been investing or trading in st

Q: Do you trade in cash market or Derivati

Q: How long have you been investing in stoc

Q: Would you like to undergo free education

on technical investigation

Q: What is your market/ stock prefe

chip. ......???

46. The application form contains

scrutiny which appears to have been

the profile inconsistencies. Rl has

diligence in building up investor

information collected specifically for

lear that tfre Applicant has

d email id for all electronic

call, SMS and electronic

to and received bv the

brmation appears to havc

licant.

, Applicants states that shc

y R2 or R 1 while conducting

of the parties have any

t profits/losses at all.

Applicant states that during

months) R I has never evcr

y trade confirmation calls or

he is silent about post trade

itted by R 1 shows that trade

formation received from thc

k market A: No

market? A: Both

s? A: New

A: Trading strategies based

ces? Speculator/ Blue -

p for comments regarding

S ed without anv remarks on

fr iled to make adequate due

customer profile from the

at purpose.

47 . In Point 47 of Statement of Case' pplicant has alleged that Rl

never ever designed any process of co

clients and R I never ever made any c

municating directlY with its

ls/or comulunication to her

of the word communicationduring the tenure of trading' The u

apart from the word calls, suggests t she did not receive any Post

trade communications (like SMS or ntract notes) from Rl' Both

a record of a telePhone callthe allegations lack merit as there i

made by R1 in which aPPlicant's hus d has owned the trades and

accepted the balance in account' Th applicant has not disclosed

of any kind while suchreceipt of Post trade confirmatio

communications was received on the mail id of aPPlicant's husband,

which was given bY the aPPlican in the oPening form IKYC

e signed the forms blank isdocuments. APPlicant's claim that

neither proved nor absolves her of

und.er no compulsion either by R 1 or

by her.

er responsibilitY as she was

to sign the forms as claimed

48. The applicant paid Rs'S lacs int trading account on' 26th 'Iuncby her, and rePorts ncl follow

st 18 - two months - ti1l shcl 8 as per date of clearance mention

up of any kind till first week of A

came to know about Probablelall d fraud bY ResPondent no'2,

er. on 28tt. June aPPlicant'sfrom Mr. Nikam's enquiries' H

husband has zrlready confirmed cer in trades and the balance as

on that d,ate, on behalf of the aPPli

having accessed the trading accou

t and there is a record of his

on 23'd July,18 confirmed bY

him in oral submission. This clearly

stated above.

disproves the aPPlicant's claim

49. The aPPlicant has claime that R2 Provided tradc

basis and provided fudged andconfirmations over phone on a daily

misleading feedback to induce h to continue trading in hcr

account on the basis of fraudul nt information, but has not

produced any documentarY eviden by way of email or sms from

R2. Contrary evidence is alreadY

applicant in oral submissions.

on record and confirmed bY

50. The applicant has requested

furnish copies of certain documents

been furnished, while for others, thi

grounds for arbitration to accede to th

51. R2 (AP) has claimed, referring

applicant, that the applicant has not o

were given by her for trades that we

instructions but suppressed material i

aware of the technical difficulties fa by the ftesPondent at thc

ant correctly refrained from

of relevant SEBI guidelines

t the said circular had no

is unacceptable as the brokcr

idelines and disPute can be

of many kinds and can best be resolve only by reference to the Proof

as required to be maintained

52. R2 has also said that (ref. Para ), the entire apProach of thc

claimant seems to be to acqulesce with the respondents when

utes upon suffering losses on

This points to some regulargenerating profits and then raise dis

mobile telephonic communication

which has not been denied bY aPPli

tween R2 and the APPlicant

instance of BSNL. However, the APP

raising any allegations of violation

meaning that there was no disPute

effect in the facts in present case. Thi

has the burden of Proof under SEBI

trades made under her instmctions

t's husband.

Award:

1. Rl and R2 have been in gross violation of SEBI guideline 'all brokers

shall execute trades of clients o

the client placing such order'.

complying with the guidelines but ha

claim of exception to be made for

after keeping evidence of

ey had several oPtions for

not cared to do so and their

chnical glitch has no merit

whatsoever. SEBI and or NSE v deal with the violations

appropriately. However, in this c . their violation of SEBI

guidelines has not caused any loss to he applicant as claimed.

The applicant has suppressed mate

confirmation call/s from Rl and

ial information on receiPt of

receipt of post transaction

confirmations by way of sms/email contract notes etc. and has

faited to prove any of her allegations

reimbursement of Rs. 370,000 to

inst Rl lR2. Her claim for

ards balance from money

deposited by her in trading account d Rs. I47 ,OOO towards refund

of brokerage earned by R I lR2 are rej ted.

3. There is no award as to costs of arbi tion or anv other relief.

4. Counterclaim of Rs. 19,00,000 by Rl

consideration at all because simply

is ridiculous and deserves no

y following the SEBI rule on

pre-transaction confirmations in let r and spirit, any possibilitY of

ts and others could have beenany of the alleged actions by applic

nipped in the bud by R1.

Date: March 17,2021.

Place: Pune.

Pramod Vaidya

Sole Arbitrator

2.