0% found this document useful (0 votes)

130 views41 pages

The Aforesaid Noticees Are Hereinafter Referred To by Their Respective Name / Noticee Number and Collectively Referred To As "Noticees", Unless The Context Specifies Otherwise

This order concerns 8 entities engaged in unregistered investment advisory activities in violation of SEBI regulations. An interim order was previously passed against the entities, citing prima facie evidence that they were providing investment advice and holding themselves out as registered advisors without proper registration. This final order examines the entities' responses and concludes whether violations have occurred.

Uploaded by

Pratim Majumder

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

130 views41 pages

The Aforesaid Noticees Are Hereinafter Referred To by Their Respective Name / Noticee Number and Collectively Referred To As "Noticees", Unless The Context Specifies Otherwise

Uploaded by

Pratim Majumder

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

WTM/SM/WRO/WRO/14468/2021-22

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

CORAM: S. K. MOHANTY, WHOLE TIME MEMBER
ORDER
Under Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B (1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
Act, 1992

In respect of:

Sr. No. Name of the Entity PAN

1 Dalal Merchandise Advisory Pvt. Ltd. AAGCD5267K

2 Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar AJVPB0407A

3 Maulikkumar Rajeshkumar Prajapati FHVPP0689B

4 Pinalben Himanshubhai Bhavsar ARLPB8324N

5 Devki Stocks Pvt. Ltd. AAGCD5268G

6 Devang Pareshbhai Vyas AZIPV2102K

7 Vishwas Stocks Research Pvt Ltd AAGCV2217H

8 Javed Lalmahamad Sindhi GMCPS0364B

(The aforesaid Noticees are hereinafter referred to by their respective name / Noticee
number and collectively referred to as “Noticees”, unless the context specifies otherwise)

In the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks

Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited

Background

1. The present proceedings have emanated from an ex-parte ad-interim order

dated January 25, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Interim Order”) passed by the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) against

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 1 of 41
the Noticees, as the unregistered Investment Advisory (hereinafter referred to as
“IA”) activities of the Noticees were prime facia found to be in violation of the
provisions of Section 12(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act, 1992”) read with regulation 3(1) of the SEBI
(Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “IA
Regulations, 2013”). Further, in the Interim Order, the activities of the Noticees were
also, prima facie, found to be fraudulent and manipulative and in violation of
provisions of Section 12A (a), (b) & (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992 and regulations 3 (a)
(b), (c) & (d) and regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(k) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent
and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations, 2003).

2. I find that the Interim Order passed in the matter contained following
observations with respect to the Noticees:

a) SEBI received a complaint dated August 5, 2020 through SCORES against

Mr. Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar (Noticee no. 2). The complainant had
attached a copy of FIR lodged with Bangalore City, Cyber Crime Police
Station along with his complaint. The complainant had mentioned in the
FIR that one Mr. Rahul Sharma called the complainant and promised
assured returns on an investment of INR 8,00,000/-. Having got induced by
the promise of assured return, the complainant had transferred INR
8,18,550/- to various bank accounts of Vishwas Stocks Research Pvt Ltd
(Noticee no. 7).

b) Noticees viz. Noticee no. 1, Noticee no. 5 and Noticee no. 7 (hereinafter
collectively referred to as “3 Noticee Companies”) were hosting various
contents on their respective websites wherein various advisory services
offered by them were described and were undertaking to offer advice
related to investing in, purchasing and selling in securities and are also
offering various investment packages for subscription.

d) It was further revealed from the webpages of the respective websites of the
above noted 3 Noticee Companies that the SEBI Registration No.
INA000011501 referred to above displayed on their websites, actually
pertained to the Noticee no. 2 in his individual capacity who is a common
Director in the 3 Noticee Companies and the said registration was granted by
SEBI to him as an individual applicant. The legal status mentioned in the
application of aforesaid registration number is “Individual”. Therefore, the
3 Noticee Companies were not SEBI registered Investment Advisers.

e) It was also observed that Noticee no. 3 and Noticee no. 6 were Directors in the
Noticee no. 1 and Noticee no. 5 respectively, since December 20, 2019.
Similarly, Noticee no. 8 was a Director in Noticee no. 7 since December 21,
2019. Further, Noticee no. 4 was also a Director in the Noticee no. 7 till March
21, 2020.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, allegations and the information gathered
it was, prima facie, observed in the Interim Order that the 3 Noticee Companies were
indulged in rendering IA services for consideration for which no registration as
mandated under the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and the IA Regulations, 2013
was obtained by them. Further, the corporate entities i.e. 3 Noticee Companies have
falsely held themselves out as Investment Advisers by displaying on their
websites, the SEBI Registration held by Noticee no. 2 in his individual capacity.
Therefore, the activities of the 3 Noticee Companies alongwith other Noticees (who
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 3 of 41
were Directors in the 3 Noticee Companies at some point of time during the relevant
period) were prima facie observed to be in violation of provisions of Section 12(1),
12A (a), (b), (c) of SEBI Act, 1992 alongwith regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and
regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(k) of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 and regulation 3(1) of the
IA Regulations, 2013.

4. As the Noticees were prima facie observed to have violated the relevant
provisions of laws, rules and regulations pertaining to securities market vide the
aforesaid Interim Order, the following interim directions have been issued with a
view to protecting the interest of investors of securities market:

a) To cease and desist from acting as investment advisors including the activity of
acting and representing through any media (physical or digital) as an investment
advisor, directly or indirectly, and cease to solicit or undertake such activity or any
other activities in the securities market, directly or indirectly, in any matter
whatsoever, until further orders;
b) Not to divert any funds raised from investors, kept in bank accounts and/or in their
custody until further orders;
c) Not to dispose of or alienate any assets, whether movable or immovable, or any
interest or investment or charge on any of such assets held in their name, including
money lying in bank accounts except with the prior permission of SEBI;
d) To immediately withdraw and remove all advertisements, representations,
literatures, brochures, materials, publications, documents, communications etc.,
physical or digital or on their website, in relation to their investment advisory
activity or any other unregistered activity in the securities market until further
orders;
e) Not to access the securities market and buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in
any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, until further orders;
f) To provide a full inventory of all assets held in their name, whether movable or
immovable, or any interest or investment or charge on any of such assets, including
details of all bank accounts, demat accounts and mutual fund investments,

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 4 of 41
immediately but not later than 5 working days from the date of receipt of this order,
and
g) To submit the number and details of clients who have availed their investment
advisory services and to submit details of fees collected from each such client,
immediately but not later than 5 working days from the date of receipt of this order
5. The above Interim Order issued to the Noticees was also in the nature of a
Show Cause Notice (hereinafter also referred to “SCN”) whereby the Noticees were
provided with the opportunity to file their objections/reply, if any, within 21 days
from the date of the Interim Order and were also provided with an opportunity of
personal hearing before SEBI in that regard. Before, I proceed further on facts of
the case, it is pertinent to note that subsequent to the issuance of the afore-stated
Interim Order, Noticees approached the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as the “SAT”) against the directions of the Interim Order.
The Hon’ble SAT vide its order dated April 26, 2021 (Appeal No. 196 of 2015), inter
alia, directed as under:

“2. Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, we are of the opinion that
the appellants should apply for revocation of ex-parte ad-interim order dated
January 25, 2021 before the authority concerned. We consequently, dispose of the
appeal directing the appellants to file an application for revocation / modification of
the order dated January 25, 2021 within two weeks from today. If such an
application is filed, the authority will consider and pass an appropriate order after
giving an opportunity of hearing within six weeks thereafter.”

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble SAT, a Common

Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as “AR”) of the Noticees has
submitted a common Application (hereinafter referred to as “Application”) on
behalf of all the Noticees, specifying therein the constraints being faced by the
Noticees on account of directions issued under Interim Order. In compliance with
the afore-stated directions of Hon’ble SAT, the common submissions filed on
behalf of the Noticees were examined and after having considered the written
submissions and after having heard the Noticees, the Application seeking interim

7. I note from the records available before me that the Interim Order / SCN was
duly served upon the Noticees by SPAD / email dated January 28, 2021.
Subsequently, the AR vide a common letter dated January July 20, 2020 on behalf
of all the Noticees, has filed certain submissions to SEBI. In conformity with the
principles of natural justice, a personal hearing was also conducted through video
conferencing mode on July 20, 2021, which was attended by the Noticee no. 2
alongwith the said common AR of the Noticees during which, oral presentations
were made before me on behalf of the Noticees broadly on similar lines as per the
written submissions earlier made by the Noticees on various dates. Subsequently
vide emails dated August 30, 2021 and September 03, 2021, the AR of the Noticees
has submitted certain documents and has relied upon judgements of the Hon’ble
SAT to further press their arguments.

8. I note that the Noticees in their common replies have, inter alia, submitted
certain arguments, which were also part of their Application submitted to SEBI
subsequent to the above noted directions issued by the Hon’ble SAT vide its order
dated April 26, 2021. Further, the Noticees while submitting their replies during the
present proceedings have, inter alia, requested to consider their earlier submissions
made in the said Application. Keeping in view, all the above stated submissions
made before me, both written and oral, I find the facts of the case and the
arguments advanced on behalf of the Noticees are broadly as follows:

a) Noticee no. 2 has obtained the registration as an IA under the category of

“Individual”, under regulation 3 of the SEBI IA Regulations, 2013. He is the
actual and de facto owner and controller of the above noted 3 Noticee
Companies. Therefore, it is only Noticee no. 2, who was running the business
of Investment Advisory (for short “IA”) through the above named 3 Noticee
Companies. The said IA activities and the monies collected from such
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 6 of 41
activities were indeed collected on behalf of the Noticee no. 2 and the above
said 3 Noticee Companies were acting as an interface, through which such IA
activities were being performed.
b) At the time of seeking registration for himself, the Noticee no. 2 got an
impression that after obtaining registration in his individual name, he can
do the business in the name of his companies. Therefore, Noticee no. 2 was
under a bonafide understanding that once the registration certificate was
obtained in his individual name under IA Regulations, 2013, it was
permissible for him to execute IA services through Private
Limited/incorporated Companies. Accordingly, Noticee no. 2 incorporated 3
different companies namely Noticees no. 1, 5 and 7 along with his wife
(Noticee no. 4) and both of them were holding 50% shares each, in each of
those 3 Noticee Companies.

c) In the month of August 2020, Noticee no. 2 visited the Western Regional
Office (WRO) of SEBI to enquire about the transfer of his personal
registration in favour of the 3 Noticee Companies and upon such enquiry,
Noticee no. 2 was informed that SEBI does not permit the individual
registration granted under the IA Regulations, 2013 to be utilized for carrying
out IA services through any incorporated entities. Accordingly, immediately
upon receipt of such classification, all the IA activities were ceased by the 3
Noticee Companies and subsequent to that they only received some pending
payments for the advisory services had already been given. It is needless to
mention that after the meeting with SEBI officials in August 2020, 3 Noticee
Companies did not render any advisory service but had only accepted
pending payments for previously rendered commitments. Noticees have
further contended that only because Invoices are issued at a later date does
not mean that the service commitment did not exist prior to August 2020.

d) Noticee no. 2 through the 3 Noticee Companies was providing IA Services to

more than 415 customers and there are only 6 complaints against them on
SEBI Complaint Redress System (for short “SCORES”). Further, all the
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 7 of 41
aforementioned 6 SCORES complaints referred to the names of the 3 Noticee
Companies, namely Noticees no. 1, 5 and 7, hence, SEBI was aware that the
Noticee no. 2 was running business in the name of the 3 Noticee Companies.
Therefore, it may not be appropriate to state that SEBI was not aware of
Noticee no. 2 running the business in the name of 3 Noticee Companies.

e) Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 were inducted in the respective 3 Noticee Companies i.e.
Noticees no. 1, 5 and 7 as shareholders, only in June 2020. Immediately after
their induction, they (through Noticee no. 2) had requested for the
registration to be transferred in the name of the respective companies.
Though Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 were appointed as Directors in December
2019, still they had not acted upon the said directorship, as immediately
upon their appointment, Covid related lockdown was imposed within a
period of 3 months. Further, though Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 were appointed as
directors, they had not intended to actually intervene in the business or in
the administrative and financial manner of those companies but were only
desirous of infusing working capital after the transfer of the shares of the
said company, which only happened in June 2020. Hence, even otherwise,
any action against Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 is not necessary as they were only in
the process of entering in to the said business and before they could
successfully provide any administrative assistance which would have any
material bearing on the business, the Lockdown was imposed and
consequently, said Noticees could not act or perform any duties as director of
the 3 Noticee Companies. It has been further submitted that a director can
only be made liable if any specific allegation of fraud is made against the
director. However, as the Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 entered into the respective
companies with an intent to have the IA license in the name of such
companies, no case of fraud can be made against them.

f) Regarding the role of Noticee no. 4, it has been submitted that she had never
exercised any control over the 3 Noticee Companies and was only appointed
as a director, being the wife of Noticee no. 2. It has been further submitted
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 8 of 41
that she was all throughout a sleeping and inactive director in all the 3
Noticee Companies and accordingly has resigned in March 2020

g) Regarding the complaint filed by one Hareesha, Noticees have submitted

that the said complaint was false as the said complainant was neither the
customer of any of the Noticees, nor the said person who has represented
himself to be an employee of the Noticees, was ever an employee either
directly or indirectly, of any of the 3 Noticee Companies. Moreover, the said
complaint was resolved as soon as the said complainant had lodged a police
complaint and the police machinery was utilized to settle his grievances.

h) No IA activity was carried out prior to the IA registration received by the

Noticee no. 2 and the amount of INR 9,76,298/- was not collected by way of
rendering any Investment Advisory services as recorded in the Interim
Order. Further, the amounts of credits received in the bank accounts of the 3
Noticee Companies as recorded in the Interim Order have not been received
exclusively from =the sale of the IA services but also by way of various
loans taken by the 3 Noticee Companies from third parties.

i) Noticees have further contended that one of the essential ingredients of the
fraud and fraudulent conduct, independent of the SEBI (Prohibition of
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market)
Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations, 2003”) is
mens rea which in turn has to be supported with a motive to commit such
fraud. In fact, when Noticee no. 2 himself had the registration certificate,
there was no need for the Noticee no. 2 to commit any fraud in the name of
the 3 Noticee Companies. Noticee no. 2 could have very well conducted the
business on his own name, however, he was under a bonafide impression that
he could conduct the business through companies, needless to mention that
it was Noticee no. 2 who was handling the IA services himself.

j) It has been further submitted that when the directors (Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8)
of the 3 Noticee Companies were under bonafide belief that the said services

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 9 of 41
are provided by Noticee no. 2 through the said 3 Noticee Companies, the
question of shifting the liability on the directors does not arise, unless
specific allegation against Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 for such non-compliance is
made out in clear terms. It has also been submitted that Noticees no. 3, 6 and
8 though were appointed as Directors of Noticees no. 1, 5 and 7 respectively
in December 2019, still they had not acted upon the said directorship since
after their appointment, a nationwide lockdown was imposed within a
period of 3 months. Invocation of Section 179 of the Companies Act, 2013 by
lifting the corporate veils of the 3 Noticee Companies while clandestinely
overlooking the registration certificate of the Noticee no. 2, has been
unjustifiably and erroneously done to hold the directors (Noticees no. 3, 6 and
8) of the 3 Noticee Companies responsible.

k) Noticees have further argued on the power vested in SEBI to issue directions
for refund of monies to the clients / customers of 3 Noticee Companies. In this
regard, they have submitted that regulation 27 of the IA Regulations, 2013
confers power on the Board to issue directions to refund the monies to the
“concerned clients” and the term “concerned clients” would have to be
interpreted from the phrasing used in the regulation 23 of the IA Regulations,
2013, wherein it is contemplated that the Board may inspect the company
either suo moto or on receipt of a complaint by a client/s. Therefore, if any
complaint of a client is received by SEBI and if SEBI finds that the company
/ Investment Advisor is in breach of any provisions of law or IA regulations,
2013 then the board may direct the IA to issue refund to the concerned client
i.e. the client who complained. As there are no such complaints of clients
seeking refund of monies, issuing any directions to refund the monies to all
clients against the Noticees may not even arise. In this regard, for the
purpose of interpretation of statutes, Noticees have referred to judicial
observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following matters:

 In the matter of Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta (AIR 2005 SC 648);

 In the matter of Ram Rattan vs. Parma Nand (AIR 1946 PC 51);
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 10 of 41
 In the matter of Hari Prasad Shivashanker Shukla vs. A.D. Divelkar AIR
1957 SC 121);

l) In order to ascertain as to whether the 3 Noticee Companies were actually

providing the IA Services without obtaining appropriate registration,
corporate veil must be lifted and the actual person/entity providing the IA
services through the 3 Noticee Companies may be identified. In this regard,
Noticees have relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the matter of State of UP vs. Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. (1988) 4
SCC 59.

m) Noticees have also submitted that all of their clients were aware that it was
Noticee no. 2 who holds the SEBI registered certificate and was providing IA
services through the 3 Noticee Companies. In this regard, the Noticees have
submitted letters and affidavits from some of their clients.

n) Noticees have pleaded that on account of the IA business carried out by 3

Noticee Companies, no loss was caused to the securities market and there
were no illegal gains. Further, all the monies earned have been taxed and
various expenses like salaries, maintenance expenses, etc. have been legally
incurred, and the 3 Noticee Companies are otherwise compliant with all
relevant provisions of law. Therefore, as a period of more than 6 months has
elapsed since the Interim Order came into operation and the Noticees have
already suffered immense loss, they do not deserve any further suspension.
Noticees have further submitted letters and affidavits from certain clients to
prove their innocence.

o) Noticees have further contended that in the instant case, the charges are not
serious enough warranting heavy punitive actions and therefore SEBI
should not resort to a more stringent measure since that would destroy the
business of the Noticees and would bring it to a standstill. Noticees have
further referred to the judicial observations of Hon’ble SAT in the following
matters to take a lenient view against the Noticees:

 In the matter of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd vs. SEBI [2001];

 In the matter of Libord Finance Ltd vs. Whole Time Member [2008];

 In the matter of UBS Securities Asia Ltd vs. SEBI [2005];

 In the matter of Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd vs. SEBI [2009];

 In the matter of Rajeev Singh Rajput vs. SEBI [2019]

p) Noticees have further submitted that, in any case, any direction or measure
so taken by SEBI, especially in the nature of a penalty, must be
commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and any penalty
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative. In this
regard, Noticees have referred to the judicial observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the following matters while requesting for
application of the principle of proportionality:

 In the matter of Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1983 SC
454;

 In the matter of Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386;

 In the matter of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749;

 In the matter of Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463;

 In the matter of Excel Crop Care Ltd vs. Competition Commission of India
(2017) 8 SCC 47;

 In the matter of Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532.

9. I have carefully perused and considered the prima facie findings as recorded
in the Interim Order and have also considered the above noted submissions made
by the Noticees. The charges so levelled in the present matter lead me to an
examination of a limited issue, i.e., whether the Noticees have violated the relevant
provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992, the IA Regulations, 2013 and the PFUTP
Regulations, 2003 while acting as an Investment Adviser?
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 12 of 41
10. Before I proceed to examine the aforementioned submissions of the Noticees
and other materials available on record, I find it worthwhile to recapitulate that the
Interim Order has charged the Noticees with violation of the SEBI Act, 1992
alongwith relevant provisions of the IA Regulations, 2013 and relevant provisions of
the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. In order to appreciate the import and significance of
the said provisions, it would be appropriate to refer to the said provisions, having
bearing on the allegations made against the Noticees. Accordingly, the said
provisions are being reproduced hereunder for convenience and ready reference:

SEBI Act, 1992

Section 12 (1)

“No stock broker, sub-broker, share transfer agent, banker to an issue, trustee of
trust deed, registrar to an issue, merchant banker, underwriter, portfolio manager,
investment adviser and such other intermediary who may be associated with
securities market shall buy, sell or deal in securities except under, and in accordance
with, the conditions of a certificate of registration.”

Section 12A: No person shall directly or indirectly:

(a) use or employ, in connection with the issue, purchase or sale of any securities listed
or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the
rules or the regulations made thereunder;

(b) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with issue or dealing
in securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange;
(c) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or would operate
as fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the issue, dealing in
securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognised stock exchange, in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made
thereunder;

Regulation 3(1)

On and from the commencement of these regulations, no person shall act as an

investment adviser or hold itself out as an investment adviser unless he has obtained
a certificate of registration from the Board under these regulations”

PFUTP Regulations, 2003

Regulation 3. Prohibition of certain dealings in securities

No person shall directly or indirectly-

(a) buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in a fraudulent manner;

(b) use or employ, in connection with issue, purchase or sale of any security listed or
proposed to be listed in a recognized stock exchange, any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of the provisions of the Act or
the rules or the regulations made there under;

(c) employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with dealing in or
issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock
exchange; (d) engage in any act, practice, course of business which operates or
would operate as fraud or deceit upon any person in connection with any dealing
in or issue of securities which are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized
stock exchange in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and the
regulations made there under.

4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in a

fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securities.

(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if

it involves fraud and may include all or any of the following, namely: -

………

(k) an advertisement that is misleading or that contains information in a distorted

manner and which may influence the decision of the investors”.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 14 of 41
11. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, SEBI received a complaint, against
Noticee no. 2, in which the complainant, inter alia, had alleged that the complainant
had paid cumulative amount of INR 8,18,550/- to various bank accounts of Noticee
no. 7 as the said Noticee had promised to give assured returns on the investments of
the complainant. From a preliminary examination conducted by SEBI, it emerged
that the Noticee no. 2 who is a common Director in all the 3 Noticee Companies, is a
SEBI registered Investment Advisor having Registration No.: INA000011501. The
said Certificate of Registration was granted by SEBI to Noticee no. 2 on August 23,
2018 as an individual applicant. Perusal of the same shows that the application
submitted by Noticee no. 2 while seeking the registration was in the status of an
“Individual” and not “Corporate”.

12. From a further scrutiny, it was gathered that the 3 Noticee Companies through
their respective websites, were hosting various contents pertaining to their IA
services, which are tabulated below:

Name of the Details mentioned on the website

Noticee

Noticee no. 7 www.vishwasstocksresearch.com

Vishwas Stocks Under the heading “Our Goal”, the following is mentioned: “Our Goal is to
Research Pvt achieve higher returns on our customer investments. customer's trust and provide
Ltd them with the finest Indian stock market tips, services which are economically
and financially beneficial to them”.
Under the heading “Who We Are”, the following is mentioned: “…The
company comprises of a flock of ignited brains having experience of more than 10
years in the capital market. What else do you want for sure shot profit strategies?...
We aim to achieve higher returns on our customer investments. customer’s trust and
provide them with the finest Indian Stock Market Tips.” It is observed from
the content of the website that they provide 24x7 support.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 15 of 41
Noticee no. 1 www.dalalmerchandiseadvisory.com
Dalal One the main page of the website the following is mentioned: “Dalal
Merchandise Merchandise is a research house and investment advisory company carrying out
Advisory Pvt. operations in the Indian Equity & Commodity market. We are a trusted name
Ltd. in the financial services arena.”
Under the heading “Our Goal”, the following is mentioned: “We want to earn
and be worthy of our customer’s trust and provide them with the finest Indian
Stock Market Tips and achieve higher returns on our customer investments /
trading capital.”
It is observed from the content of the website that they provide trade alerts via
SMS every day and live tips.

Noticee no. 5 www.devkistocks.com

Devki Stocks Under the heading “Who We Are”, the following is mentioned: “… On the
Pvt. Ltd. other side we distribute Live Tips via High Speed SMS Gateway, which ensures
the instant delivery of message without any loss of time so, the clients get adequate
time to enter the trade and fetch the profit… As a result, using our tips our clients
have been gaining excellent profits. We also throws diversified range of services as
per the requirement of an investor, intraday traders and brokers with the best
customer support. We believe in giving each and every client a special treatment by
providing online and telephonic assistance during market hours and the performance
of our Products and Services are different and unique from those of our competitors.
Some of these products and services are inventions of a kind. The Unique Selling
Proposition is Best quality”.

13. I also note that the following pricing details/ fee structure for availing
various securities market related services were also stated on the websites of the
said 3 corporate Noticees:

Vishwas
Sl. Product Monthly Quarterly Package Half Yearly Yearly Package
No. Package (Rs) Package (Rs)
(Rs) (Rs)
1 Bulls stock cash 1,25,000/- 2,25,000/- 3,25,000/- 4,25,000/-
2 Rhino Intraday 15,000/- 50,000/- 1,50,000/- 3,60,000/-
3 Blazer Stock Future 2,50,000/- 4,50,000/- NA NA

Dalal
Sl. Product Monthly Quarterly Half Yearly Yearly
No. Package (Rs) Package (Rs) Package (Rs) Package (Rs)
1 Stock cash BTST 16,999/- 41,999/- 71,999/- 1,11,999/-
2 Intraday cash 8,999/- 21,999/- 36,999/- 51,999/-
3 Future positional 16,999/- 41,999/- 71,999/- 1,21,999/-
4 Mcx Combo pack 2,51,999/- 3,51,999/- 4,51,999/- 5,51,999/-

Devki
Sl. Product Monthly Quarterly Half Yearly Yearly Package
No Package (Rs) Package (Rs) Package (Rs) (Rs)
1 BTST-STBT Future 22,656/- 45,076/- 85,196/- 1,65,436/-
2 MCX Combo 52,156/- 1,41,836/- 2,77,536/- 5,32,416/-
3 Nifty Bank Nifty 29,736/- 82,836/- 1,53,636/- 2,95,236/-
4 Stock cash 15,576/- 29,736/- 56,876/- 1,11,156/-

14. In addition to the above, from the respective websites of the said 3 Noticee
Companies, I note that the 3 Noticee Companies were accepting payments in their
various bank accounts as well as through payment gateways. Though the Interim
Order has recorded that the 3 Noticee Companies had cumulatively received an
amounts to the tune of INR 4.26 crores (INR 4,26,22,789), the Noticees vide their
Application have submitted that the 3 Noticee Companies have cumulatively collected
a total amount of INR 7.34 crores. Details of the same are placed below:

Noticee no. Amount (in INR)

1 42, 140, 388 /-
5 17,650,353
7 13,643, 178 /-
Total 7,34,33,919/-

15. I further note from some of the credit transactions in the bank accounts of
the 3 Noticee Companies, that such credit entries are supported by narrations which
indicate that these credit entries represented the payments of IA services and were
received from various investors / clients. An illustrative list of such narrations
observed in the bank account of the said 3 Noticee Companies is tabulated below:

9/7/2019 BIL/INFT/001749562855/Advisory Fees/ 2600

16/7/2019 BIL/INFT/001754681088/For advisor/ 2100
NEFT-N199190879000094-VIDYA VINOD SHARMA
18/7/2019 10000
ADVISORY
Devki (SBI)

1/8/2018 BY TRANSFER-Share tips fee-- 10000

BY TRANSFER-INB
12/9/2018 3700
IMPS825518793289/9910004548/XX2960/Stock advi--
BY TRANSFER-INB
18/9/18 6000
IMPS826118833207/9910004548/XX2960/Stock advi--
Vishwas (ICICI Bank)

18/4/2018 BIL/001434435632/Investment/NSP 5500

14/5/2018 BIL/001452078215/Investment/NSP 6000
24/12/2018 BIL/INFT/001604667868/Week 1 stock tips 5000

16. From the aforesaid factual details as have been extracted from the websites,
bank accounts and also from the details submitted by the Noticees themselves, I
find that 3 Noticee Companies were engaged in giving advice relating to investing in,
purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing in securities or investment products, as
was proclaimed by them through their respective websites. At this juncture, it is
pertinent to look at the definition of Investment Adviser (or short “IA”) as
articulated in regulation 2(m) of the IA Regulations, 2013 which states that
Investment Adviser means “any person, who for consideration, is engaged in the business
of providing investment advice to clients or other persons or group of persons and includes
any person who holds out himself as an investment adviser, by whatever name called”.
Further, I have also perused regulation 2(l) of the IA Regulations, 2013 which
defines Investment Advice as “advice relating to investing in, purchasing, selling or
otherwise dealing in securities or investment products, and advice on investment portfolio
containing securities or investment products, whether written, oral or through any other
means of communication for the benefit of the client and shall include financial planning.”

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 18 of 41
17. In the light of the aforesaid definitions and the content published on the
website of the Noticees about the advisory services provided by them, the
consideration received by them by offering such services as visible from the bank
accounts as well as the allegations imputed in the Interim Order, I note that the 3
Noticee Companies, through their websites were clearly offering investment advice
as defined under regulation 2(l) of the IA Regulations, 2013 by offering to give
advice related to investing in, purchasing and selling of securities and were also
offering various service packages to the investors at large, inviting them to take
subscription for availing the services of investment advisory, being rendered by
them as proclaimed on their websites.

18. I note that the Noticees have nowhere during the proceedings denied that the
3 Noticee Companies were not involved in providing IA services to their clients /
investors. In fact, it has been vehemently admitted that it was Noticee no. 2 who
was soliciting investors to deal in securities market through the 3 Noticee Companies
and the said IA activities undertaken by the 3 Noticee Companies and the monies
collected from the clients by them were indeed being undertaken and collected on
behalf of the Noticee no. 2 for which, the 3 Noticee Companies were serving as an
interface. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the 3 Noticee Companies were
charging fees from various clients in name of IA services for which, no separate
registration to operate as IAs was obtained by them. Further, the webpages of the 3
Noticee Companies had displayed the SEBI registration number granted to the
Noticee no. 2, who was registered with SEBI in his individual capacity. By
displaying such registration number on their respective websites, the 3 Noticee
Companies have misled the investors by claiming to be registered intermediaries
with SEBI. It was also not qualified by any of the 3 Noticee Companies on their
website that the registration number actually pertains to one of the directors and
not to the entities themselves in whose names IA services were being rendered.
Moreover, the clients who approached the 3 Noticee Companies for IA Services
approached these entities believing them to be SEBI registered IAs and subscribed
to various services / packages offered by these companies in their corporate names
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 19 of 41
and not in the individual name of Noticee no 2. There was no way for the investors
/ clients to know that it was Noticee no. 2 only who was legally entitled to render
IA services as the clients / investors subscribed to the packages offered by the 3
Noticee Companies.

19. In view of the above, I have no doubt that the 3 Noticee Companies were
providing IA services, in lieu of consideration which was received in their
respective Bank Accounts and as discussed earlier, in terms of regulation 2(l) of IA
regulations, 2013 such kind of advice was in fact “investment advice”. Therefore,
there is no ambiguity left that the 3 Noticee Companies were engaged in the business
of providing investment advice to the public, in lieu of monetary consideration and
were thus, acting as an ‘investment adviser’, as defined under regulation 2(m) of
the IA Regulations, 2013.

20. The Interim Order has alleged that the 3 Noticee Companies were not SEBI
registered IA, however they were involved in providing IA activities to clients /
investors and by displaying the IA certificate of Noticee no. 2 on their respective
websites, the 3 Noticee Companies were holding themselves out as SEBI registered
IA. Therefore, such acts of the 3 Noticee Companies were found to be in violation of
SEBI Act, 1992 and IA Regulations 2013. At this juncture, it will be of foremost
importance to discuss the true intent and significance behind regulation of
activities of IAs by SEBI. In order to protect the interest of investors and to
preserve the integrity of the securities market, IA Regulations, 2013 provide various
safeguards to ensure that the interest of the investors who receive investment
advice are protected. One such safeguard provided under the said Regulations is
that any person carrying out investment advisory activities has to obtain
registration from SEBI as required under regulation 3(1) of the IA Regulations, 2013,
which, inter alia, provides that, no person shall act as an investment adviser or hold
itself out as an investment adviser unless he has obtained a certificate of
registration from SEBI and also has to conduct its activities in accordance with the
provisions of IA Regulations, 2013. Further, various safeguards provided under IA
Regulations, 2013 to protect the interests of investors include continued minimum
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 20 of 41
professional qualification and net-worth requirement for investment adviser,
disclosure of all conflicts of interest, prohibition on entering into transactions
which are contrary to advice given to the clients for 15 days after such advice is
given, risk profiling of investors, maintaining documented process for selecting
investment products for clients based on client’s investment objective and risk
profile and understanding of the nature and risks of products or assets selected for
such client, etc.

21. It is not a disputed fact that the 3 Noticee Companies were involved in
providing IA services without having IA registration certificate their names.
However, I note that he Noticees have contended that as Noticee no. 2 was holding a
IA registration and was primarily managing the affairs of the 3 Noticee Companies
including soliciting investors to avail the services, the IA activities carried out by 3
Noticee Companies can’t be held illegal and therefore, all the Noticees may be
exonerated from the proceedings. With regard to the afore-stated contention, it is
important here to note that similar argument was put forth by the Noticees while
filling the Application after the issuance of Interim Order and after a careful
consideration the same was rejected in terms of the Additional Order. Though the
said argument has already been dealt in the Additional Order, for the purpose of
convenience, I am dealing with the same herein again in brief. I note that, after
taking into cognizance of the settled law that an individual and a corporate body
are separate and distinct legal entities, the IA Regulations, 2013 provide for different
eligibility criteria to be applied for their respective registration as IA by SEBI. I note
that the regulation 7 of the IA Regulations, 2013 clearly lays down the qualification
and other requirements for applying for a certificate of registration as an
Investment Adviser. Similarly, regulation 8 of the IA Regulations, 2013 mandates
the minimum net worth criteria for different classes of IAs. Therefore, the
contentions put forth by the Noticees in their defense stating that as the Noticee no. 2
possessed a valid registration certificate in his individual name, the advisory
business was undertaken by the 3 Noticee Companies under a bonafide
understanding that once the registration certificate was obtained in an individual

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 21 of 41
name, it was permissible for him to render his advisory services through any
Private Limited/Incorporated Companies, are nothing but an afterthought exercise
to evade the adverse outcome of this proceeding. The Noticees have apparently
chosen this deceptive strategy to offer advisory services under three different
brand names and in the names of three different corporate entities with an
apparent motive to capture maximum numbers of clients by illegally displaying
the registration number of Noticee no. 2 which belonged to him in his individual
capacity. Hence, such contentions of the Noticees by feigning innocence of law
thereby trying to prove their bonafide are devoid of any merit and liable to be
rejected in limine.

22. The activities of the 3 Noticee Companies, as brought out from the various
materials described above, seen in the backdrop of the aforesaid regulatory
provisions show that the 3 Noticee Companies were holding themselves out and
acting as SEBI registered IAs. However, the fact remains that the Noticees have
never got themselves registered with SEBI in the capacity of IA. Hence, I find that
these activities of IA being carried out and the representations as were being made
out by the 3 Noticee Companies without holding any certificate of registration from
SEBI to perform the job as investment adviser, are in violation of Section 12(1) of
SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulation 3(1) of the IA Regulations, 2013

23. I further note that the Interim Order has alleged that the aforesaid conduct of
the Noticees has amounted to perpetrating fraud upon the investors / clients since,
such conduct is also found to be in violation of PFUTP Regulations, 2003. In this
regard, it is important to visit the definition of ‘fraud’ as provided under PFUTP
Regulations, 2003 which reads as under:

“fraud” includes any act, expression, omission or concealment committed whether

in a deceitful manner or not by a person or by any other person with his connivance
or by his agent while dealing in securities in order to induce another person or his
agent to deal in securities, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or avoidance of
any loss, and shall also include--
(1) a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of material fact in order
that another person may act to his detriment;
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 22 of 41
(2) a suggestion as to a fact which is not true by one who does not believe it to be
true;
(3) an active concealment of a fact by a person having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(4) a promise made without any intention of performing it;
(5) a representation made in a reckless and careless manner whether it be true or
false;
(6) any such act or omission as any other law specifically declares to be fraudulent;
(7) deceptive behavior by a person depriving another of informed consent or full
participation;
(8) a false statement made without reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
(9) the act of an issuer of securities giving out misinformation that affects the
market price of the security, resulting in investors being effectively misled even
though they did not rely on the statement itself or anything derived from it other
than the market price.

And “fraudulent” shall be construed accordingly”

24. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that by displaying SEBI

registration number on their websites, which belonged to one of its individual
Directors, the 3 Noticee Companies had misled the investors by claiming to be
corporate registered intermediaries who were never registered with SEBI. The
information related to SEBI registration number, was also not duly qualified
clarifying to the public that the said registration number actually pertains to one of
its Directors and not to any of the three companies. In the absence of any such
qualification, considering that the websites belonged to the 3 Noticee Companies, a
reasonable person / investor will understand / gather that the registration referred
to on the websites pertained to these 3 Noticee Companies. In other words, the 3
Noticee Companies have claimed / represented themselves to be registered with
SEBI as investment advisory companies thereby instilling a presumption in the
minds of the investors that they follow all the norms prescribed by SEBI for
corporate investment advisors that are required for investors’ protection. Thus, the
3 Noticee Companies have proclaimed before the investors at large misleading

________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 23 of 41
information and have concealed the fact that they are not registered with SEBI as
investment advisors and were thus making those representations knowing them to
be false, only for luring and inducing investors to deal in securities. The above
discussed acts of the 3 Noticee Companies are fraudulent in nature and are very well
covered under the definition of 'fraud' as defined under regulation 2(1)(c) of
PFUTP Regulations, 2003. Therefore, in my opinion, the fraudulent acts / conduct
of the 3 Noticee Companies as discussed above have certainly been committed in
violation of provisions of Sections 12A (a), (b), (c) of SEBI Act, 1992 read with
regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and regulations 4(1) and 4(2)(k) of PFUTP Regulations,
2003.

25. With regard to the role of the other Noticees, I note that the Interim Order has
alleged that as the other Noticees (Noticees no. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8) were holding the
positions of Directors during the relevant period of time when those unregistered
IA activities were being conducted by the 3 Noticee Companies, such Director
Noticees also have to become liable for the violations committed by the said
Companies. To further ponder upon the roles of these Noticees, it is important to
look at their respective tenures of directorship in the said 3 Noticee Companies
during the relevant period, which are indicated as below:

Name of the Company Name of the Director Tenure

Vishwas Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar 21-12-2017 till date

(Noticee no. 7) (Noticee no. 2)
Javedbhai Lalmahamad Sindhi 21-12-2019 till date
(Noticee no. 8)
Pinalben Himanshubhai Bhavsar 21-12-2017 till 21-03-2020
(Noticee no. 4)
Dalal Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar 24-01-2018 till date
(Noticee no. 1) (Noticee no. 2)
Maulikkumar Rajeshkumar Prajapat 20-12-2019 till date
(Noticee no. 3)
Pinalben Himanshubhai Bhavsar 24-01-2018 till 21-03-2020
(Noticee no. 4)
Devki Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar 24-01-2018 till date
(Noticee no. 5) (Noticee no. 2)

26. I note from the records available before me that Noticee no. 2 and Noticee no. 4
(till 21.03.2020) were common directors in all the 3 Noticee Companies.
Subsequently, Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 became Directors of Noticee no. 1, the Noticee
no. 5 and also of the Noticee no. 7 respectively in December 2019. In this regard, I
observe that the Noticee no. 2 was holding 50% shareholding in all the 3 Noticee
Companies and the rest of the 50% shareholdings in these 3 Noticee Companies
namely, the Noticee no. 1, the Noticee no. 5 and the Noticee no. 7 being held by the
Noticee no. 3, Noticee no. 6 and Noticee no. 8, respectively. It is important to note that
any company being an artificial juristic person and an inanimate legal entity
cannot act by itself and it can act only through its Individual Directors, who are
expected to discharge their responsibilities on behalf of the company with utmost
care, skill and diligence. Further, in terms of Section 179 of the Companies Act,
2013, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such
powers and do all such acts and things which the company is legally authorised to
exercise and do. Therefore, the Board of Directors, being the repository of wisdom
and decision making abilities and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day
business of a company, shall be liable for any non-compliance of law and such
liability shall be upon the individual Directors who comprise the board of the
company and are in control of the affairs of the company. In this regard, I would
like to refer to the provisions of the section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 while
attributing the contraventions committed by a company to the role played by the
Directors of such a company which are placed below:

Contravention by companies
27. (1) Where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule,
regulation, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a company,
every person who at the time the contravention was committed was in charge of, and
was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as

27 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an

contravention under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved
that the contravention has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other
officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against
and punished accordingly.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, — (a) “company” means anybody
corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”,
in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”

27. Thus as per SEBI Act, 1992, for the contravention of law committed by a
company, apart from the company, the Directors of the company who at the time
of the said contravention were having knowledge of the said contravention or any
negligence on their part has resulted in the said contravention, are also liable for
said contravention of law committed by the company. In this case, from the
material available on record, it is observed that none of the Directors of the 3
Noticee Companies was designated as Managing Director or Executive Director or
Independent Director. It is also observed from the material available on record that
during the relevant period, the 3 Noticee Companies did not have a CEO or CFO or
any other officer who could have been designated as key managerial personnel.
Therefore, all the Directors who were on the Board of the 3 Noticee Companies were
practically in charge and were responsible for managing the affairs / business of
those respective companies.

28. With regard to role of Noticee no. 2, there is now no dispute at all that he was
not only involved in managing the IA activities of the 3 Noticee Companies, but also
has been playing all the key roles starting from applying for registration Certificate
from SEBI in his individual name to floating the 3 Noticee Companies for providing
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 26 of 41
unregistered IA services through these companies which make it glaringly evident
about the role of Noticee no. 2 in carrying out all those illegal activities through
those 3 Noticee Companies. The Noticees have vehemently argued that though
Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 were appointed as directors of the 3 Noticee Companies, they
intended to intervene in the business of those 3 Noticee Companies by infusing
working capital, only after the completion of transfer of the shares of the respective
company in their names, which happened only in June 2020 and therefore, no
action should be taken against Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8. In this regard, I note that
under Section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013 certain duties have been spelt out
with respect to discharge of the obligation by the directors of a company. Perusal
of this statutory provision would indicate that a director of a company shall
exercise his duties with due and reasonable care, skill and diligence, and shall
exercise independent judgment. In the context of the above stated statutory
provision dealing with the duty of a director under law, the above noted directors
of the above mentioned 3 Noticee Companies were supposed to discharge their
functions as Directors with due diligence on account of the fiduciary obligation
inherently thrusted upon them under law, vis-à-vis the company. It is a well
settled law that the position of a director of a company is embodiment of a
fiduciary relationship with the company and a director is under a legal obligation
to observe utmost good faith towards the company in any transaction done with it
or on its behalf. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the present matter,
looking at the statutory and fiduciary obligation that the above mentioned Noticee
Directors were expected to discharge towards the 3 Noticee Companies, they cannot
plead ignorance completely about the unauthorised IA activities of those 3 Noticee
Companies (of which they held the position of a director), which have practically
led to closure of those companies due to the said illegal Investment Advisory
services being rendered by them without obtaining necessary registration from
SEBI. It is also to be noted that such fiduciary obligation of a director does not
cease with his/her resignation as a director. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme

“33. Company though a legal entity cannot act by itself, it can act only through its
Directors. They are expected to exercise their power on behalf of the company with
utmost care, skill and diligence. This Court while describing what is the duty of a
Director of a company held in Official Liquidator v. P.A. Tendolkar (1973) 1 SCC
602 that a Director may be shown to be placed and to have been so closely and so long
associated personally with the management of the company that he will be deemed to
be not merely cognizant of but liable for fraud in the conduct of business of the
company even though no specific act of dishonesty is provide against him personally.
He cannot shut his eyes to what must be obvious to everyone who examines the affairs
of the company even superficially.

29. Keeping the aforesaid factual as well as legal position in view, the fact that
Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8 have not submitted any documents to evidently prove that
they had no role to play in the functioning of the 3 Noticee Companies or to establish
that the 3 Noticee Companies had otherwise a CEO or CFO or any other designated
key managerial personnel in place who was responsible for the day-to-day
functioning of the 3 Noticee Companies, the malafide role of the Noticees no. 3, 6 and 8
in the whole scheme of fraud perpetrated on the clients by the 3 Noticee Companies
while providing unauthorised IA services, cannot be ignored.

30. As regards the role of Noticee no. 4, it has been submitted that she had never
exercised any control over the 3 Noticee Companies and was only appointed as a
director as she was the wife of Noticee no. 2. It has been further submitted that she
was all throughout a sleeping and inactive director in all the 3 Noticee Companies
and has resigned from those Companies in March 2020. First of all, it needs to be
clarified that unlike the Partnership Act, 1932, there is no concept of sleeping and
inactive director in the Companies Act, 2013. Secondly, as already observed by me
in the preceding paragraphs, in none of the aforesaid 3 Noticee Companies, neither
any Director was assigned as Managing Director / CEO nor there was any other

31. Noticees have further argued on the power of SEBI under the IA Regulations,
2013 to issue directions to them for refund of monies to the clients / customers of
the 3 Noticee Companies. In this regard, they have submitted that in terms of the
provisions of IA Regulations, 2013, SEBI can direct the companies to refund amount
to only such clients who have made specific complaints to SEBI and SEBI has
found out from its inspections that such companies are indeed in breach of any
provisions of law or IA Regulations, 2013 qua those complaints. I further note that
the aforesaid argument has been adverted on the basis of a combined reading of
regulations 23 and 27 of the IA Regulations, 2013. In this regard, for the purpose of
interpretation of statutes, Noticees have referred to judicial observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matters such as Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta,
Ram Rattan vs. Parma Nand, Hari Prasad Shivashanker Shukla vs. A.D.Divelkar, etc.
First of all, having gone through the above referred cases as cited by the Noticees, I
find that most of these cases are not relevant to the facts and circumstances and the
proceedings in the instant matter. Secondly, the IA Regulations, 2013 set out the
rules and regulations to be followed by the IAs while providing IA services in the
securities market subsequent to registering themselves under the said regulations.
Next is Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, the provisions of which strongly enables
the regulator to take all the pivotal measures possible for the purpose of investors
protection including issuing directions for refund as a remedial tool to protect the
interests of investors. Thus, in my view, the set of measures that can be taken
under Section 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, can include issuing direction to refund the
amounts collected from the investors/ clients by way of providing services in an
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 29 of 41
unauthorised and illegal manner. In the instant matter, it is a matter of fact that the
3 Noticee Companies have not registered themselves under the IA Regulations, 2013
and have provided IA services without having requisite registration and thus have
acted in violation of provisions of SEBI Act, 1992 and IA Regulations, 2013.
Therefore, the attempt of the Noticees to shelter themselves under a narrow and
misleading interpretation of IA Regulations, 2013, under which they have
deliberately not registered themselves, will not come to their rescue to exonerate
them from the unauthorized IA activities they had indulged in a fraudulent
manner to induce investors to avail their IA services.

32. The Noticees have further argued that in order to ascertain as to whether the
3 Noticee Companies were actually providing the IA Services without obtaining
appropriate registration the corporate veil of those 3 Noticee Companies must be
lifted and the actual person/entity functioning behind those 3 Noticee Companies
and providing the IA services through 3 Noticee Companies may be identified. It is
pertinent to note that such an argument pressed upon by the Noticees regarding
lifting of the corporate veil, has been dealt in the Additional Order, wherein I have
rejected the aforesaid argument of the Noticees. Nevertheless, for the sake of
convenience I am briefly dealing with the said argument of the Noticees in the
subsequent paragraphs.

33. Doctrine of lifting of corporate veil indicates that when the people sitting
behind a corporate entity start misusing this veil of corporate personality, it
becomes necessary for the courts to pierce the corporate veil to expose those
persons who are responsible for such misuse of corporate personality of an entity
or who are in fact the real beneficiaries of those abusive acts. This well recognized
principle of lifting of corporate veil or piercing the corporate veil is held to be valid
only in extraordinary circumstances. Thus, the doctrine of lifting of the corporate
veil means the owners or shareholders or members are separated from the
corporate personalities when the legal status of a company as a juristic person is

34. I further note that while arguing for lifting of corporate veil, Noticees have
strongly relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
State of UP vs Renusagar Power Co. and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 59. Having gone through
the above judgement referred to by the Noticees, I note that the facts and
circumstances of the above cited case are completely distinguishable from the facts
of the instant matter. In the case of Renusagar Power (supra), after disallowing the
request for exemption from levy of electricity duty under U.P. Electricity Duty Act,
1952, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued notice of demand asking
Renusagar Power Co., to pay electricity duty on the energy supplied by it to
Hindalco, for industrial purposes. Being aggrieved by the decision of the State
Government, the Renusagar and Hindalco filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble
High Court, wherein the demand notice raised by the State Government of Uttar
Pradesh was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Being aggrieved by the decision
of the High Court, the State Government moved a Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for relief, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
inter alia, held that Renusagar, a 100% subsidiary of Hindalco, wholly owned and
controlled by Hindalco was generating and providing energy to Hindalco,
therefore, the person generating and the person consuming the energy were the
same hence, the corporate veil should be lifted. From the aforesaid facts, I note
that, the above cited case was about granting relief on the ground that after lifting
the corporate veil, both the entities were found to be the same entity. However, in
the instant matter, the 3 Noticee Companies after providing unregistered IA services
are trying to take shelter under their argument of lifting of corporate veil, to state
that one of their Directors was holding registration Certificate in his personal
capacity hence the unauthorised IS services provided by them are justified under
law. In the preceding paragraphs of this Order, I have already dealt with the
significance and importance of the rational for keeping separate registration
requirement for Individuals and Body Corporates under IA Regulations, 2013. It has
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 31 of 41
been already pointed out that the IA Regulations, 2013 have prescribed separate
criteria for eligibility, net worth and various other conditions for an individual as
distinct from a company seeking IA registration from SEBI. Therefore, it is
blatantly a mischievous idea even to think that the IA registration obtained by an
Individual can be used by a company for dispensing IA services. The eligibility
conditions of a corporate applicant are much more onerous under IA Regulations,
2013 than the eligibility conditions prescribed for an Individual applicant.
Therefore, the above cited judgement referred to by the Noticees is of no use in the
instant matter and the argument of the Noticees that the 3 Noticees Companies ought
to be treated synonymous with the Noticee no. 2 whose registration number was
displayed on their websites, is untenable and against the very concept of treating
corporate as a separate legal entity.

35. Further, it is a well settled principle that the aforesaid doctrine is to be

applied as an exception than as a rule and only in extraordinary circumstances
when a natural person is seeking to evade his responsibility under the guise of a
corporate entity. In this regard, I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 264 inter
alia held:

“…..Generally and broadly speaking, we may say that the corporate veil may be lifted
where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is
intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a beneficent statute is sought to be
evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality,
part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of
cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the
relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned
conduct, the involvement of the element of the public interest, the effect on parties who
may be affected etc.”
emphasis supplied

36. I further note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
Arcelormittal India Private Ltd V. Satish Kumar Gupta And Others, (2019) 2 SCC
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 32 of 41
1 (DoD: October 04, 2018) has inter alia held that where the statute itself lifts the
corporate veil or where the protection of public interest is important or where a
company is formed to evade obligations imposed by law, the court will disregard
the corporate veil. The observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-stated
matter are placed below:

34. “It is thus clear that, where a statute itself lifts the corporate veil, or where
protection of public interest is of paramount importance, or where a company has
been formed to evade obligations imposed by the law, the court will disregard the
corporate veil. Further, this principle is applied even to group companies, so that
one is able to look at the economic entity of the group as a whole.”

37. In view of the above, the doctrine of lifting the veil is required to be applied
where natural persons are hiding their liability and accountability under the guise
of corporate entity. The instant matter is not the case, where there can be a
necessity to find out from the records as to who are the natural persons responsible
for the management and affairs of the 3 Noticee Companies so as to examine only
those natural persons and their role in the alleged IA activity and exonerate all the
3 Noticee Companies, even though these companies have directly dealt with the
investors for rendering IA services. Therefore, I am of the considered view that
there is absolutely no necessity for application of the doctrine of lifting of corporate
veil, in this case.

38. Noticees have further contended that in the instant case, the charges are not
serious enough warranting heavy punitive actions and therefore SEBI should not
resort to a more stringent measure since that would destroy the business of the
Noticees and bring it to a standstill. To support the above, judgment of the Hon’ble
SAT in the matters of Shyam Sundar Dalmia vs SEBI (2005), Sterlite Industries (India)
Ltd vs SEBI (2001), Libord Finance Ltd vs. Whole Time Member (2008), UBS Securities
Asia Ltd vs SEBI (2005) and Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd vs SEBI [2009] have
been relied upon by the Noticees. Further, Noticees have also submitted that, in any
case, any direction or measure so taken by SEBI, especially in the nature of a
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 33 of 41
penalty, must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and any penalty
disproportionate to such gravity of misconduct would be violative. In this regard,
Noticees have, inter alia, referred to the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the matters of Bhagat Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1983 SC 454), Ranjit
Thakur vs Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 2386), B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India (1995 6
SCC 749). Having gone through the submissions of the Noticees and the aforesaid
judgements referred to by the Noticees, I note that none of those judgements has
dealt with matters pertaining to unregistered IA services. To appreciate the gravity
of the illegal activities indulged in by the Noticees wherein fees have been charged
from the clients / investors by the 3 Noticee Companies against their investment
advisory services for which no requisite registration was obtained from SEBI by
the said 3 corporate bodies. The IA Regulations, 2013 have prescribed broad checks
and balances so as to keep the interest of the investors protected from any kind of
untoward treatment or unscrupulous acts by dishonest Investment Advisors. The
Code of Conduct spells out the general duties of the investment adviser to act
honestly and fairly so as to serve the best interest of the clients in a fiduciary
manner and to keep intact the integrity of securities market. The investment
adviser ought to act with due care and skill by paying the highest regard to the risk
tolerance level of the investor and by objectively arriving at suitability of the
product proposed to be suggested to different investors having different levels of
risk appetites. Thus, an ecosystem needs to be developed in a way wherein
genuine advisory services are rendered in exchange of a fee, to the
clients/investors in a fair, transparent and objective manner by those IAs who are
qualified & eligible to render IA services only after being registered by SEBI, to
carry out such activities. However, the interest of the investor has to be always
kept as of paramount importance by the IAs. One must not forget that the law
provides for mandatory registration for such entities that are willing to act as
intermediaries between the regulator and investors. In case any entity that
pretends to have registration and thereby becomes successful in giving a
misleading impression that it possesses the requisite registration which upon

39. Noticees have also submitted that all of their clients were aware that it was
Noticee no. 2 who holds the SEBI registered certificate and was providing IA
services through the 3 Noticee Companies. In this regard, Noticees have also
submitted letters of their clients stating that the they (clients) were aware about the
fact that the IA certificate registration belonged to Noticee no. 2 and the business of
IA services was being carried out by Noticee no. 2 through the 3 Noticee Companies. I
note that to verify the aforesaid claim of the Noticees, SEBI on a random basis had
contacted 92 clients of the Noticees through telephonic calls on the mobile numbers
as provided by the Noticees. The findings/observations made after making such
telephonic calls are mentioned below:

Wrong number 39

Switched off/not available/call disconnected 35

Client identified however denied for providing letter 18

Total 92

40. I see from the aforementioned table that the mobile numbers provided by
Noticees for most of the clients were either not correct number or not in existence.
Out of 92 different clients to whom such calls were made, only 18 confirmed their
identity as mentioned in the data provided by the Noticees. Surprisingly, none of
the 18 clients whose identity was matched through stated that they had availed IA
services from the 3 Noticee Companies, strongly denied the authenticity of the letters

41. Another contention of the Noticees is that one of the essential ingredients of
the fraud and fraudulent conduct, independent of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 is
mens rea which in turn has to be supported with a motive to commit such fraud
and in the instant case, as Noticee no. 2 himself had the registration certificate,
hence there was no need for the Noticee no. 2 to commit any fraud in the name of
any of the company. In this regard, I would like to refer to the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Baldev Bhai Patel vs. SEBI [2017]
143 SCL 124 (SC) (DoD- 20/09/2017) in which, while dealing with the definition of
“fraud” as provided under PFUTP Regulations, 2003, the Apex court observed as
under:

“…The difference between inducement in criminal law and the wider meaning
thereof as in the present case, is that to make inducement an offence the intention
behind the representation or misrepresentation of facts must be dishonest whereas in
the latter category of cases like the present the element of dishonesty need not be
present or proved and established to be present. In the latter category of cases, a mere
inference, rather than proof, that the person induced would not have acted in the
manner that he did but for the inducement is sufficient. No element of dishonesty or
bad faith in the making of the inducement would be required….”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court have further observed that:

“…14. To attract the rigor of Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 Regulations, mens rea
is not an indispensable requirement and the correct test is one of preponderance of
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 36 of 41
probabilities. Merely because the operation of the aforesaid two provisions of the 2003
Regulations invite penal consequences on the defaulters, proof beyond reasonable
doubt as held by this Court in Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Kishore R.
Ajmera(supra) is not an indispensable requirement. The inferential conclusion from
the proved and admitted facts, so long the same are reasonable and can be legitimately
arrived at on a consideration of the totality of the materials, would be permissible and
legally justified….”

42. Therefore, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the test to examine
as to whether the alleged “fraud” has been actually committed is a matter of
preponderance of probability. In fact, in the instant matter, in my opinion, it was a
deliberate attempt by the Noticees to provide IA services through 3 different Noticee
Companies by using the registration certificate of Noticee no. 2 without taking
separate registrations for the said 3 Noticee Companies, since all the 3 Noticee
Companies (Noticees no. 1, 5 and 7) would have been required individually to fulfil
onerous the net worth criteria and would have to independently abide by various
other eligibility entities as prescribed under the IA Regulations, 2013 for corporate
applicants for becoming eligible to apply registration as an IA, which would have
necessitated additional financial resources and various other strict regulatory
compliances. Whereas by not obtaining separate registration and by misleadingly
heading out to the public the IA registration of Noticee no. 2 to be their own
registration, the 3 Noticee Companies have been successfully inducing the potential
investor to approach them and avail their IA services in big numbers.

43. The PFUTP Regulations, 2003 and IA Regulations, 2013 have been formulated
with the main objective of prohibiting fraud in the securities markets and
regulating investment advisory activities to safeguard the interests of investors and
hence, registration of investment advisory activities with SEBI has been made
mandatory. The IA Regulations, 2013 inter alia, seek to create a structure within
which investment advisers will have to operate and the said regulations make
them duly accountable for the investment advice rendered by them by requiring
the investment advisers to comply with various criteria prescribed in the relevant

44. As already discussed in the foregoing paragraph above, SEBI Act, 1992 and
IA Regulations, 2013 mandate that an Investment Advisor has to hold a certificate of
registration to act as such. However, as already pointed out above, I find that the 3
Noticee Companies were not holding any certificate of registration from SEBI to act
as Investment Advisors. Although the Noticee no. 2, who was one of the
shareholders and Directors in all the 3 Noticee Companies, that were involved in
providing IA services, was a SEBI registered Investment Adviser and might have
been rendering IA services on behalf of the said 3 Noticee Companies, the said
registration taken in his personal name was of no help to the 3 Noticee Companies,
who had deliberately chosen not to obtain any IA registration in their respective
corporate names, before they started out to conduct the business of IA activities in
the securities market. Nevertheless, while issuing directions against the Noticees,
the aforesaid mitigating factors, viz: that Noticee no. 2 had an IA registration in his
personal capacity and was actively associated in the business operations of the 3
Noticee Companies, needs to be taken into due cognizance. Further, I also note from
the records that apart from the complainant Hareesha, 3 other complainants had
filed the complaints against the Noticee no. 2 and the 3 Noticee Companies through
SCORES platform, which have been reportedly disposed of.

45. In view of the foregoing discussions and my observations, I, in exercise of

the powers conferred upon me in terms Sections 11, 11(4),11B (1) and 11D, read
with of Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992 and regulation 11 of the PFUTP Regulations,
2003, while disposing of the allegations levelled in the Interim Order cum SCN,
hereby direct the following:

a) The Noticees shall within a period of 30 days from the date of this Order
cause the issuance of a public notice in all editions of two National Dailies
(one English and one Hindi) and in one local daily with wide circulation,
inviting claim of all sorts from the clients to whom services of investment
advisory were rendered;
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final order in the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks
Advisory Private Limited and Devki Stocks Private Limited.
Page 38 of 41
b) The aforesaid public notices shall contain the details of the contact person
such as names, addresses (including email address) and contact details,
inviting attention of clients/investors to lodge complaint, in case having
grievances against the Noticees in relation to the rendition of investment
advisory services. The period to lodge complaint shall remain open for a
period of three months from the date of the public notice;

c) After receipt of the grievances and complaints as mentioned above, the

Noticees shall ensure that the same is resolved within a period of 30 days
from the closure of period to lodge complaint. In case the complaints are
pertaining to finance / refund, same shall be effected only through Bank
Demand Draft or Pay Order or electronic fund transfer or through any other
appropriate banking channels, which ensures audit trails to identify the
redressal;

d) After completing the aforesaid redressal exercise, the Noticees shall file a
report of such completion with SEBI addressed to the Division Chief,
Investment Management Department, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C4 A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051, within a period of
15 days, after completion of the grievance / complaint redressal exercise as
mentioned at sub paragraph (c) above. Such report shall be duly certified by
an independent Chartered Accountant.

e) The Noticees are prevented from selling their assets, properties and holding
of mutual funds/shares/securities held by them in demat and physical
form except for the sole purpose of making the refunds as directed above.
Further, the banks are directed to allow debit only for the purpose of
making refunds to the clients/investors who were availing the investment
advisory services from the Noticees, as directed in this Order, from the bank
account of the Noticees, wherein debit has been frozen by virtue of Interim
Order dated January 25, 2021;

g) The Noticees are debarred from accessing the securities market, directly or
indirectly and are prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in
the securities market, directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever, for a
period of 06 (six) months from the date of this Order or till the expiry of 06
(six) months from the date of completion of redressal exercise and filing of
report to SEBI as directed in sub-paragraph (d) above, whichever is later;

h) The Noticees are also restrained from associating with any company whose
securities are listed on a recognized stock exchange and any company which
intends to raise money from the public, or any intermediary registered with
SEBI in any capacity for a period of 06 (six) months from the date of this
Order or till the expiry of 06 (six) months from the date of completion of
redressal exercise and filing of report to SEBI as directed in sub-paragraph
(d) above, whichever is later; and

i) The Noticees shall not undertake, either during or after the expiry of the
period of debarment/restraint as mentioned in sub-paragraph (g) and (h)
above, either directly or indirectly, investment advisory services or any
other activity in the securities market without obtaining a certificate of
registration from SEBI as required under the securities law.

46. The direction as given in paragraph 45 above, does not preclude the
clients/investors from pursuing the other legal remedies available to them under
any other law, against the Noticees for refund of money or deficiency in service
before any appropriate forum of competent jurisdiction.

47. This Order comes into force with immediate effect.

48. It is further clarified that during the period of restraint, the existing holding
of securities including the holding of units of mutual funds of the Noticees shall
remain frozen.

-Sd-

DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2021 S. K. MOHANTY

PLACE: MUMBAI WHOLE TIME MEMBER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

SEBI Final Order in The Matter of Capitalaim Financial Advisory Pvt. LTD Jan 09, 2023
No ratings yet
SEBI Final Order in The Matter of Capitalaim Financial Advisory Pvt. LTD Jan 09, 2023
42 pages
Final Order Against VRP Capital Services
No ratings yet
Final Order Against VRP Capital Services
16 pages
SEBI Order on Right Target Advisory
No ratings yet
SEBI Order on Right Target Advisory
28 pages
SEBI Order on Unregistered Advisory by Baap of Chart
No ratings yet
SEBI Order on Unregistered Advisory by Baap of Chart
49 pages
Background of Case:: Order in The Matter of Prakash Industries Limited Page 1 of 15
No ratings yet
Background of Case:: Order in The Matter of Prakash Industries Limited Page 1 of 15
15 pages
In Re New Era Advisors PVT LTD in The Matter of MaSB201705092410410371COM936306
No ratings yet
In Re New Era Advisors PVT LTD in The Matter of MaSB201705092410410371COM936306
11 pages
Mr. Alias (PAN: EWEPB1991R)
No ratings yet
Mr. Alias (PAN: EWEPB1991R)
34 pages
INVG69341
No ratings yet
INVG69341
57 pages
8k Sebi 1671206856447
No ratings yet
8k Sebi 1671206856447
132 pages
Aforesaid Entities Are Hereinafter Individually Referred To by Their Respective Name or Noticee Number and Collectively As "The Noticees".
No ratings yet
Aforesaid Entities Are Hereinafter Individually Referred To by Their Respective Name or Noticee Number and Collectively As "The Noticees".
62 pages
Ecurities and Xchange Oard of Ndia Umbai Rder
No ratings yet
Ecurities and Xchange Oard of Ndia Umbai Rder
31 pages
INVG67336
No ratings yet
INVG67336
29 pages
In Re V Icl Multitrading India LTD
No ratings yet
In Re V Icl Multitrading India LTD
11 pages
SEBI Disclosure Rights Explained
No ratings yet
SEBI Disclosure Rights Explained
59 pages
SEBI Order Against Green Money Solution
No ratings yet
SEBI Order Against Green Money Solution
13 pages
SEBI Restrains Unregistered Advisor
No ratings yet
SEBI Restrains Unregistered Advisor
25 pages
Page 1 of 59
No ratings yet
Page 1 of 59
59 pages
SEBI Order (Self Trade)
No ratings yet
SEBI Order (Self Trade)
45 pages
Book 1
No ratings yet
Book 1
16 pages
Abhipra Capital Ltd Compliance Order
No ratings yet
Abhipra Capital Ltd Compliance Order
22 pages
SEBI Order: Surabhi Mundhara Case
No ratings yet
SEBI Order: Surabhi Mundhara Case
32 pages
Order in The Matter of Mr. Chetan Yashwant Shukla, Research Analyst
No ratings yet
Order in The Matter of Mr. Chetan Yashwant Shukla, Research Analyst
20 pages
Final Order in The Matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited
No ratings yet
Final Order in The Matter of Dalmia Industrial Development Limited
51 pages
T Takano Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
No ratings yet
T Takano Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
30 pages
SEBI Tribunal Appeal Analysis
No ratings yet
SEBI Tribunal Appeal Analysis
26 pages
Hereinafter Referred To As Company/ FIPL Hereinafter Referred To As "
No ratings yet
Hereinafter Referred To As Company/ FIPL Hereinafter Referred To As "
31 pages
SEBI Final Order on ARSS Infrastructure
No ratings yet
SEBI Final Order on ARSS Infrastructure
95 pages
WTM/SM/WRO/WRO/14467/2021-22: Act, 1992") Read With Regulation 3 (1) of The SEBI (Investment Advisers)
No ratings yet
WTM/SM/WRO/WRO/14467/2021-22: Act, 1992") Read With Regulation 3 (1) of The SEBI (Investment Advisers)
22 pages
SEBI Order on Unregistered Advisory
No ratings yet
SEBI Order on Unregistered Advisory
19 pages
SEBI Adjudication on Abhishek IA
No ratings yet
SEBI Adjudication on Abhishek IA
21 pages
CMCL7854121451
No ratings yet
CMCL7854121451
23 pages
Ilovepdf Merged
No ratings yet
Ilovepdf Merged
63 pages
SEBI Order on Religare Enterprises Fraud
100% (1)
SEBI Order on Religare Enterprises Fraud
29 pages
Adjudication Order in The Matter of Manish Goel, Research Analyst
No ratings yet
Adjudication Order in The Matter of Manish Goel, Research Analyst
46 pages
Securities Assignment 6
No ratings yet
Securities Assignment 6
6 pages
SEBI Order on Birla Pacific Medspa Fraud
No ratings yet
SEBI Order on Birla Pacific Medspa Fraud
61 pages
Judgment: Reportable
No ratings yet
Judgment: Reportable
35 pages
Sebi Imposes 5 Lakh Penalty On HSBC Asset Management For Inadequate Investment Decision Documentation 552342
No ratings yet
Sebi Imposes 5 Lakh Penalty On HSBC Asset Management For Inadequate Investment Decision Documentation 552342
37 pages
INVG61496
No ratings yet
INVG61496
61 pages
Sebi Adj Order CS Signing DRHP 1740304691
No ratings yet
Sebi Adj Order CS Signing DRHP 1740304691
13 pages
Investor Protection Against Broker Fraud
No ratings yet
Investor Protection Against Broker Fraud
9 pages
Writ Petition-Bank of Rajasthan-Latest Modified
No ratings yet
Writ Petition-Bank of Rajasthan-Latest Modified
51 pages
Wtm/an/isd/isd Sec 1/29722/2023 24
No ratings yet
Wtm/an/isd/isd Sec 1/29722/2023 24
125 pages
SEBI Order-Hasmukh Vora
No ratings yet
SEBI Order-Hasmukh Vora
52 pages
Regstreet LinkedIn Post 01.01.24 1
No ratings yet
Regstreet LinkedIn Post 01.01.24 1
28 pages
Krishna&Kunal SAT Appeal
No ratings yet
Krishna&Kunal SAT Appeal
41 pages
Utkarsh AO Order Deem Public
No ratings yet
Utkarsh AO Order Deem Public
22 pages
Adjudication Order in The Matter of M/s Wealthmax Solution Investment Adviser (Proprietor: Shri. Piyush Jain)
No ratings yet
Adjudication Order in The Matter of M/s Wealthmax Solution Investment Adviser (Proprietor: Shri. Piyush Jain)
24 pages
Ilovepdf Merged
No ratings yet
Ilovepdf Merged
80 pages
Reportable: Appellant(s) Versus Respondent (S)
No ratings yet
Reportable: Appellant(s) Versus Respondent (S)
62 pages
SEBI Action Against Unregistered Advisors
No ratings yet
SEBI Action Against Unregistered Advisors
2 pages
Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs Kishore SC20162402161639501COM692642
No ratings yet
Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs Kishore SC20162402161639501COM692642
14 pages
Kaarya Services
No ratings yet
Kaarya Services
60 pages
Qja/gr/ivd/id4/31008/2024 25
No ratings yet
Qja/gr/ivd/id4/31008/2024 25
12 pages
1
No ratings yet
1
54 pages
SEBI Order on Front Running Case
No ratings yet
SEBI Order on Front Running Case
127 pages
Final Notice
No ratings yet
Final Notice
17 pages
Background:: Order in The Matter of Sanraa Media LTD
No ratings yet
Background:: Order in The Matter of Sanraa Media LTD
28 pages
SEBI Order on Synergy Bizcon Trading Violations
No ratings yet
SEBI Order on Synergy Bizcon Trading Violations
25 pages
SEBI Order: Jaisukh Dealers Ltd Trading Investigation
No ratings yet
SEBI Order: Jaisukh Dealers Ltd Trading Investigation
51 pages
Final Order in The Matter of Hit Kit Global Solutions Limited and Ors
No ratings yet
Final Order in The Matter of Hit Kit Global Solutions Limited and Ors
55 pages
Order in The Matter of Transfer of Mutual Fund Units by Money Mishra Financial Services and Others
No ratings yet
Order in The Matter of Transfer of Mutual Fund Units by Money Mishra Financial Services and Others
30 pages
WTM/SM/CFD/CMD-1/15312/2021-22 Securities and Exchange Board of India A I E - P O Cum S C N U S 11 (1), 11 (4) 11B (1) S E B I A, 1992
No ratings yet
WTM/SM/CFD/CMD-1/15312/2021-22 Securities and Exchange Board of India A I E - P O Cum S C N U S 11 (1), 11 (4) 11B (1) S E B I A, 1992
27 pages
Company Are Listed On The BSE Ltd. (Hereinafter Referred To As "BSE") Since December 20
No ratings yet
Company Are Listed On The BSE Ltd. (Hereinafter Referred To As "BSE") Since December 20
11 pages
SEBI Exemption for KDDL Share Acquisition
No ratings yet
SEBI Exemption for KDDL Share Acquisition
10 pages
SEBI Final Order on Pentamedia GDR Issue
100% (1)
SEBI Final Order on Pentamedia GDR Issue
55 pages
WTM/SM/ISD/15646/2021-22 S E B I C O U 11 (1), 11 (4) A 11B (1) S E B I A, 1992 in Respect Of: Sr. No. Name of The Entity PAN
No ratings yet
WTM/SM/ISD/15646/2021-22 S E B I C O U 11 (1), 11 (4) A 11B (1) S E B I A, 1992 in Respect Of: Sr. No. Name of The Entity PAN
62 pages
Final Order in The Matter of Crest Ventures LTD
No ratings yet
Final Order in The Matter of Crest Ventures LTD
28 pages
Order in The Matter of Global Offshore Services Limited
No ratings yet
Order in The Matter of Global Offshore Services Limited
28 pages
Final Order in The Matter of Fortis Healthcare LTD
No ratings yet
Final Order in The Matter of Fortis Healthcare LTD
109 pages
SEBI Final Order: KM Financials Case
No ratings yet
SEBI Final Order: KM Financials Case
11 pages
SEBI Final Order: Big Em Estates Case
No ratings yet
SEBI Final Order: Big Em Estates Case
28 pages
Enquiry Against Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd.
No ratings yet
Enquiry Against Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd.
19 pages
Underground Authority
No ratings yet
Underground Authority
6 pages
Lost Stories Tech Rider 2019
No ratings yet
Lost Stories Tech Rider 2019
9 pages
ANU College of Law: Legal Studies Research Paper Series
No ratings yet
ANU College of Law: Legal Studies Research Paper Series
38 pages
Details of Lighting:: Requirement of Underground Authority and Lost Stories As Per 2 Technical Riders Provided
No ratings yet
Details of Lighting:: Requirement of Underground Authority and Lost Stories As Per 2 Technical Riders Provided
1 page
Adjudication Order in Respect of Sureena C Shah Page 1 of 30
No ratings yet
Adjudication Order in Respect of Sureena C Shah Page 1 of 30
30 pages
Target Company Are As Under:: Cquirers AN
No ratings yet
Target Company Are As Under:: Cquirers AN
20 pages
AI Strategy of India - Policy Framework, Adoption Challenges and Actions For Governmen
No ratings yet
AI Strategy of India - Policy Framework, Adoption Challenges and Actions For Governmen
19 pages
Wtm/Ab/Imd /dof - 1/14435/2021-22: S. No. Name of Entity Pan
No ratings yet
Wtm/Ab/Imd /dof - 1/14435/2021-22: S. No. Name of Entity Pan
10 pages
Banking's Role in Indian Agriculture
No ratings yet
Banking's Role in Indian Agriculture
4 pages
L01 Financial Stability and Systemic Risk Rajan Govil
No ratings yet
L01 Financial Stability and Systemic Risk Rajan Govil
23 pages
Margin Trading Facility
No ratings yet
Margin Trading Facility
15 pages
Bill Market Schemes
No ratings yet
Bill Market Schemes
2 pages
Co-operative Bank Credit Appraisal Insights
No ratings yet
Co-operative Bank Credit Appraisal Insights
20 pages
Understanding Small Scale Industries (SSI)
No ratings yet
Understanding Small Scale Industries (SSI)
44 pages
Liquidity Management: Corporate Financial Management 3e Emery Finnerty Stowe
No ratings yet
Liquidity Management: Corporate Financial Management 3e Emery Finnerty Stowe
52 pages
TCS Employee Insta Salary Account
No ratings yet
TCS Employee Insta Salary Account
3 pages
TEVTA Punjab Registration Form Guide
No ratings yet
TEVTA Punjab Registration Form Guide
3 pages
The Satoshi Revolution Final
100% (1)
The Satoshi Revolution Final
171 pages
Wall Street Letter Aug 11 - Aug 17 2011
No ratings yet
Wall Street Letter Aug 11 - Aug 17 2011
16 pages
Regulating The Financial System
No ratings yet
Regulating The Financial System
11 pages
Amendment of BRPD Circular - Final
No ratings yet
Amendment of BRPD Circular - Final
4 pages
Negotiable Instruments Overview and Case Analysis
No ratings yet
Negotiable Instruments Overview and Case Analysis
1 page
Ethiopian Bank Loan Management
No ratings yet
Ethiopian Bank Loan Management
96 pages
Ethics in Banking: Integrity and Trust
No ratings yet
Ethics in Banking: Integrity and Trust
8 pages
TVET Loan Application Guide
No ratings yet
TVET Loan Application Guide
5 pages
Banking Bot
No ratings yet
Banking Bot
6 pages
Lec 4 Money Market
No ratings yet
Lec 4 Money Market
43 pages
UCO Bank Deceased Account Claim Policy
100% (1)
UCO Bank Deceased Account Claim Policy
52 pages
MCQ and Short Answer
100% (1)
MCQ and Short Answer
5 pages
Dubai Oil, Gas & Power Finance Course
100% (1)
Dubai Oil, Gas & Power Finance Course
4 pages
The Alchemy of Finance Summary
100% (3)
The Alchemy of Finance Summary
3 pages
CBBE For Banking Sector
No ratings yet
CBBE For Banking Sector
75 pages
Mock Exam: Financial Accounting AF-101
No ratings yet
Mock Exam: Financial Accounting AF-101
4 pages
PNB Recovery Agencies Engagement Policy
No ratings yet
PNB Recovery Agencies Engagement Policy
17 pages
FCRA Updates and Compliance Insights
No ratings yet
FCRA Updates and Compliance Insights
15 pages
Local Investment Incentives Code Res. No. 2015 860 04 Ord. No. 43
No ratings yet
Local Investment Incentives Code Res. No. 2015 860 04 Ord. No. 43
18 pages
Jolo Cloud API: Money Transfer Guide
No ratings yet
Jolo Cloud API: Money Transfer Guide
16 pages
Coops
No ratings yet
Coops
5 pages

The Aforesaid Noticees Are Hereinafter Referred To by Their Respective Name / Noticee Number and Collectively Referred To As "Noticees", Unless The Context Specifies Otherwise

Uploaded by

The Aforesaid Noticees Are Hereinafter Referred To by Their Respective Name / Noticee Number and Collectively Referred To As "Noticees", Unless The Context Specifies Otherwise

Uploaded by

WTM/SM/WRO/WRO/14468/2021-22

BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Sr. No. Name of the Entity PAN

1 Dalal Merchandise Advisory Pvt. Ltd. AAGCD5267K

2 Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar AJVPB0407A

3 Maulikkumar Rajeshkumar Prajapati FHVPP0689B

4 Pinalben Himanshubhai Bhavsar ARLPB8324N

5 Devki Stocks Pvt. Ltd. AAGCD5268G

6 Devang Pareshbhai Vyas AZIPV2102K

7 Vishwas Stocks Research Pvt Ltd AAGCV2217H

8 Javed Lalmahamad Sindhi GMCPS0364B

In the matter of Vishwas Stocks Research Private Limited, Dalal Stocks

1. The present proceedings have emanated from an ex-parte ad-interim order

a) SEBI received a complaint dated August 5, 2020 through SCORES against

6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble SAT, a Common

a) Noticee no. 2 has obtained the registration as an IA under the category of

d) Noticee no. 2 through the 3 Noticee Companies was providing IA Services to

g) Regarding the complaint filed by one Hareesha, Noticees have submitted

h) No IA activity was carried out prior to the IA registration received by the

l) In order to ascertain as to whether the 3 Noticee Companies were actually

n) Noticees have pleaded that on account of the IA business carried out by 3

 In the matter of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd vs. SEBI [2001];

 In the matter of UBS Securities Asia Ltd vs. SEBI [2005];

 In the matter of Rajeev Singh Rajput vs. SEBI [2019]

 In the matter of Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463;

SEBI Act, 1992

Section 12A: No person shall directly or indirectly:

On and from the commencement of these regulations, no person shall act as an

PFUTP Regulations, 2003

Regulation 3. Prohibition of certain dealings in securities

No person shall directly or indirectly-

(a) buy, sell or otherwise deal in securities in a fraudulent manner;

4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation 3, no person shall indulge in a

(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice if

(k) an advertisement that is misleading or that contains information in a distorted

Name of the Details mentioned on the website

Noticee no. 7 www.vishwasstocksresearch.com

Noticee no. 5 www.devkistocks.com

Noticee no. Amount (in INR)

9/7/2019 BIL/INFT/001749562855/Advisory Fees/ 2600

1/8/2018 BY TRANSFER-Share tips fee-- 10000

18/4/2018 BIL/001434435632/Investment/NSP 5500

“fraud” includes any act, expression, omission or concealment committed whether

And “fraudulent” shall be construed accordingly”

24. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that by displaying SEBI

Name of the Company Name of the Director Tenure

Vishwas Himanshu Bharatkumar Bhavsar 21-12-2017 till date

27 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an

35. Further, it is a well settled principle that the aforesaid doctrine is to be

Switched off/not available/call disconnected 35

Client identified however denied for providing letter 18

The Hon’ble Supreme Court have further observed that:

45. In view of the foregoing discussions and my observations, I, in exercise of

c) After receipt of the grievances and complaints as mentioned above, the

47. This Order comes into force with immediate effect.

DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2021 S. K. MOHANTY

PLACE: MUMBAI WHOLE TIME MEMBER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

You might also like