ORDER UNDER RULE 5 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995 IN THE MATTER OF ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RRB SECURITIES LTD.

1. �Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as �SEBI�) had conducted investigation into the unusual movement in the price of the scrip Jaiprakash Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as JIL). During the course of the investigation, the investigating authority of SEBI recorded the statement of Shri J M L Suri , director of the RRB Securities Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the noticee) on July 20, 2004 in connection with the dealings of the noticee in the securities of JIL. In the said statement, it was assured by the noticee that certain details sought by the Investigating Authority shall be submitted by the noticee by July 21, 2004. It is alleged that the noticee failed to provide the said information to SEBI.

2. In view of the alleged failure on the part of the noticee to furnish necessary information to SEBI, adjudication proceedings were initiated in terms of the provisions of Section 15I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the �SEBI Act�).

NOTICE AND REPLY

3. A notice no. A&E/BS/46663/2005 dated August 11, 2005 was issued to the noticee in terms of Rule 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the �Rules�) seeking reply of the noticee as to why an inquiry should not be held in respect of the violations alleged to have been committed by it.

4. In this regard, the noticee vide its letter dated August 24, 2005 replied to the notice and submitted that it had provided all the relevant information / documents to SEBI vide its letter dated July 21, 2004 �which has been duly acknowledged by SEBI on July 22, 2004.

5. Considering the reply submitted by the noticee and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it was decided that an inquiry should be held in the matter and the noticee was advised to attend the hearing scheduled on September 26, 2005.

6. The noticee vide its letter dated September 21, 2005 requested to dispense with further proceedings and hearing in the matter in view of its written submissions. In the interest of justice, another opportunity of hearing was granted to the noticee on December 20, 2005. Ms. Amarpreet Jaiswal, Company Secretary and Authorised Representative of the noticee attended the hearing on December 20, 2005 and made the following submissions:

� We have given the information as asked by the authority vide our letter dated July 21, 2004 and also August 24, 2005.

� After July 21, 2004, we did not receive any further letter from authority asking us to elaborate the reply given vide our letter dated July 21, 2004.

� If authority is of the view that proper reply has not been submitted, I request you to grant us ten days time to file a detailed reply with regard to the charges made against us and also in respect of the questions asked in the personal hearing dated July 20, 2004.

7. The noticee made further submissions vide its letter dated December 30, 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

8. The allegation against the noticee is that it failed to provide information to the Investigating Authority of SEBI as assured by Shri J M L Suri, director of the noticee in his statement recorded on July 20, 2004 under Section 11C(5) of SEBI Act. Section 11C of the SEBI Act empowers the investigating authority to require any intermediary or any person associated with securities market in any manner, to furnish such information to or produce such books, or registers, or other documents, or record before him or any persons authorized by it.� Failure to provide information to SEBI attracts the penalty under Section. 15A (a) of SEBI Act which provides for imposition of monetary penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less.

9. During the course of the investigation, the investigating Authority recorded the statement of Shri J M L Suri, director of the noticee in respect of their dealings in the securities of JIL. In response to the following queries, Shri. Suri agreed to submit the information on July 21, 2004.

� Please state whether there are any sister concerns that are operative in the capital market and that are registered with SEBI along with their registration numbers.

� Please state as to whether this fact that you were dealing with the other brokers also was brought to the notice of your brokers in the KYC forms.

� You have bought 300000 shares through the broker RRB Master Securities Delhi Ltd. This particular transaction does not appear in the information as submitted by you today. Please explain the discrepancy.

� Please confirm whether the payment and delivery of your transaction with Har Sai Investment were settled as per the norms prescribed for spot delivery and also please submit the details thereof.

10. In response to the above information sought by the investigating authority, the noticee vide its letter dated July 21, 2004 submitted the following:

� We are submitting the list of entities promoted by Shri H.C. Bhasin / sister concerns under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 as Annexure �A�.

� We normally give all the information desired by the broker, but in the normal course of business to give name of other brokers we were dealing was not feasible.

� The transactions we have entered into with Har Sai Investments Ltd is direct transaction with the company and has been settled as per prevailing norms.

� We confirm that we have entered into the transaction of 300000 shares on 5^th November, 1999 with RRB Master Securities Delhi Ltd which erroneously been not typed in the statement of transaction submitted by us. The error is regretted. We request you to kindly treat our statement amended to the extent that we do have dealt with broker RRB Master Securities Delhi Ltd. during the period.

11. In the above context, it is pertinent to note that though the noticee had ��submitted that its transactions with Har Sai Investments Ltd. were settled as per the prevailing norms, it did not specify the details of the said transactions. �It is pertinent to note that the investigating authority has not sought further clarifications / details from the noticee in response to its letter dated July 21, 2004.� Hence no further queries were raised with regard to the veracity of the information submitted by the noticee and also of the information submitted by the noticee and also the nature of information submitted by the noticee.� However as stated before, the noticee had not clearly specify details of its transactions with Har Sai Investment Ltd.

12. Section 15 J of the SEBI Act lays down the factors to be taken into account while imposing monetary penalty. In this regard it is noted that no quantifiable figures are available to assess the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made as a result of the default.� Further, the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors also cannot be quantified on the basis of available facts and data.� Further with regard to the repetitive nature of the default it is seen that as the investigating authority has not issued any other letter or notice, in response to the letter dated July 21, 2004 submitted by the noticee, the default cannot be regarded as repetitive in nature.

13. Considering the fact that the investigating authority has not issued any other letter requiring further information from the noticee, and also considering the fact that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the veracity of the information submitted by the noticee has not been questioned by the investigating authority, by seeking further clarification.� I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case, do not warrant imposition of monetary penalty on RRB Securities Limited in terms of the provisions of Section 15 A(a) of the SEBI Act 1992.

14. In terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules 1995, copies of this order are sent to RRB Securities Ltd. and to the Securities and Exchange Board of India.��

Place: Mumbai�� Biju. S

July 21, 2006�� Adjudicating Officer

Home	Back

ORDER UNDER RULE 5 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995 IN THE MATTER OF ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RRB SECURITIES LTD. 1. �Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as �SEBI�) had conducted investigation into the unusual movement in the price of the scrip Jaiprakash Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as JIL). During the course of the investigation, the investigating authority of SEBI recorded the statement of Shri J M L Suri , director of the RRB Securities Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the noticee) on July 20, 2004 in connection with the dealings of the noticee in the securities of JIL. In the said statement, it was assured by the noticee that certain details sought by the Investigating Authority shall be submitted by the noticee by July 21, 2004. It is alleged that the noticee failed to provide the said information to SEBI. 2. In view of the alleged failure on the part of the noticee to furnish necessary information to SEBI, adjudication proceedings were initiated in terms of the provisions of Section 15I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the �SEBI Act�). NOTICE AND REPLY 3. A notice no. A&E/BS/46663/2005 dated August 11, 2005 was issued to the noticee in terms of Rule 4 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the �Rules�) seeking reply of the noticee as to why an inquiry should not be held in respect of the violations alleged to have been committed by it. 4. In this regard, the noticee vide its letter dated August 24, 2005 replied to the notice and submitted that it had provided all the relevant information / documents to SEBI vide its letter dated July 21, 2004 �which has been duly acknowledged by SEBI on July 22, 2004. 5. Considering the reply submitted by the noticee and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it was decided that an inquiry should be held in the matter and the noticee was advised to attend the hearing scheduled on September 26, 2005. 6. The noticee vide its letter dated September 21, 2005 requested to dispense with further proceedings and hearing in the matter in view of its written submissions. In the interest of justice, another opportunity of hearing was granted to the noticee on December 20, 2005. Ms. Amarpreet Jaiswal, Company Secretary and Authorised Representative of the noticee attended the hearing on December 20, 2005 and made the following submissions: � We have given the information as asked by the authority vide our letter dated July 21, 2004 and also August 24, 2005. � After July 21, 2004, we did not receive any further letter from authority asking us to elaborate the reply given vide our letter dated July 21, 2004. � If authority is of the view that proper reply has not been submitted, I request you to grant us ten days time to file a detailed reply with regard to the charges made against us and also in respect of the questions asked in the personal hearing dated July 20, 2004. 7. The noticee made further submissions vide its letter dated December 30, 2005. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS 8. The allegation against the noticee is that it failed to provide information to the Investigating Authority of SEBI as assured by Shri J M L Suri, director of the noticee in his statement recorded on July 20, 2004 under Section 11C(5) of SEBI Act. Section 11C of the SEBI Act empowers the investigating authority to require any intermediary or any person associated with securities market in any manner, to furnish such information to or produce such books, or registers, or other documents, or record before him or any persons authorized by it.� Failure to provide information to SEBI attracts the penalty under Section. 15A (a) of SEBI Act which provides for imposition of monetary penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less. 9. During the course of the investigation, the investigating Authority recorded the statement of Shri J M L Suri, director of the noticee in respect of their dealings in the securities of JIL. In response to the following queries, Shri. Suri agreed to submit the information on July 21, 2004. � Please state whether there are any sister concerns that are operative in the capital market and that are registered with SEBI along with their registration numbers. � Please state as to whether this fact that you were dealing with the other brokers also was brought to the notice of your brokers in the KYC forms. � You have bought 300000 shares through the broker RRB Master Securities Delhi Ltd. This particular transaction does not appear in the information as submitted by you today. Please explain the discrepancy. � Please confirm whether the payment and delivery of your transaction with Har Sai Investment were settled as per the norms prescribed for spot delivery and also please submit the details thereof. 10. In response to the above information sought by the investigating authority, the noticee vide its letter dated July 21, 2004 submitted the following: � We are submitting the list of entities promoted by Shri H.C. Bhasin / sister concerns under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 as Annexure �A�. � We normally give all the information desired by the broker, but in the normal course of business to give name of other brokers we were dealing was not feasible. � The transactions we have entered into with Har Sai Investments Ltd is direct transaction with the company and has been settled as per prevailing norms. � We confirm that we have entered into the transaction of 300000 shares on 5^th November, 1999 with RRB Master Securities Delhi Ltd which erroneously been not typed in the statement of transaction submitted by us. The error is regretted. We request you to kindly treat our statement amended to the extent that we do have dealt with broker RRB Master Securities Delhi Ltd. during the period. 11. In the above context, it is pertinent to note that though the noticee had ��submitted that its transactions with Har Sai Investments Ltd. were settled as per the prevailing norms, it did not specify the details of the said transactions. �It is pertinent to note that the investigating authority has not sought further clarifications / details from the noticee in response to its letter dated July 21, 2004.� Hence no further queries were raised with regard to the veracity of the information submitted by the noticee and also of the information submitted by the noticee and also the nature of information submitted by the noticee.� However as stated before, the noticee had not clearly specify details of its transactions with Har Sai Investment Ltd. 12. Section 15 J of the SEBI Act lays down the factors to be taken into account while imposing monetary penalty. In this regard it is noted that no quantifiable figures are available to assess the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made as a result of the default.� Further, the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors also cannot be quantified on the basis of available facts and data.� Further with regard to the repetitive nature of the default it is seen that as the investigating authority has not issued any other letter or notice, in response to the letter dated July 21, 2004 submitted by the noticee, the default cannot be regarded as repetitive in nature. 13. Considering the fact that the investigating authority has not issued any other letter requiring further information from the noticee, and also considering the fact that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the veracity of the information submitted by the noticee has not been questioned by the investigating authority, by seeking further clarification.� I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case, do not warrant imposition of monetary penalty on RRB Securities Limited in terms of the provisions of Section 15 A(a) of the SEBI Act 1992. 14. In terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules 1995, copies of this order are sent to RRB Securities Ltd. and to the Securities and Exchange Board of India.�� Place: Mumbai�� Biju. S July 21, 2006�� Adjudicating Officer