Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) In both these appeals common points are involved and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal. In both these appeals challenge by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (in short 'SEBI') is to the order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (in short the Tribunal').
(2.) Factual Position is almost undisputed and in respect of the appellants stand as follows : (I) C.A. No. 3696 of 2005 : The Respondent has acted as a sub-broker at the National Stock Exchange with 2 NSE Members, MIS PCS Securities Limited and M/s. Zen Securities Ltd. without being registered as a sub-broker with the SEBI with the said Exchange for the Period from the years 2000-01, 2001-02 and from April, 2002 to May, 2002 and created the value of Rs. 403.29 Crores, in breach of Section 12(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") read with Rule 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). (II) C.A. No. 4640 of 2006 (SEBI v. SHILPA STOCK BROKERS P. LTD and M/S. MEHTA VAKIL and Co.). Tribunal has recorded the fair concession of the Respondent that the Respondent registered as a broker with the SEBI while executing trades on behalf of their client Kamlesh Shroff, had dealt with M/s. Jairam Enterprises, an unregistered sub-broker, which is admittedly in violation of the Circular No. SMD/I POLICY/CIRCULAR/3-97, dated 31.3.1997 issued by SEBI in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act. As regards the second charge, the Tribunal did not uphold the finding of the Appellant SEBI. (iii) As regards M/s. Mehta Vakil and Co P. Ltd. (Appeal No. 11 of 2000 before the Tribunal) the respondent-Co. were involved in purchase of 19400 shares and sale of 800 shares of V.B. Financial which had been transacted by the said broker on behalf of their sub-broker, namely, Akshay Dalai, who was registered as a sub-broker only with effect from 14.1.2000 but had dealt with him since December, 1998 in breach of the Act, Rules Securities and Exchange Board of India Regulations and Circulars of SEBI, (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation").
(3.) The only question is whether Tribunal has power to modify the penalty imposed by SEBI According to the appellant the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify the sentence. The Tribunal in each case held that the proved charges against the respondent were not serious enough to warrant suspension of certificate of registration.;