The three-member arbitral tribunal has directed Central Depository Services (India) Ltd (CDSL) to reimburse Rs86.02 lakh for the loss suffered by an investor-client of BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd (formerly BMA Wealth Creators Ltd).
SAT Stays SEBI Order against HDFC Bank in BMA Wealth Case
Moneylife Digital Team
0
The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has stayed an order passed by market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against HDFC Bank Ltd in the BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd (BRH) (formerly BMA Wealth Creators Ltd) and BRH Commodities Private Ltd (formerly BMA Commodities Pvt Ltd) matter. Last month, SEBI had asked the lender to deposit Rs158.68 crore along with interest in an escrow account and pay a penalty of Rs1 crore in this case.
In an order, the SAT bench of justice Tarun Agarwala and justice MT Joshi pointed out that HDFC Bank is one of the largest private sector banks, and as per balance sheet it has assets of Rs16.54 lakh crore and, therefore, has sufficient financial strength and ability to furnish the amount as per the impugned order.
0
Coming down heavily on HDFC Bank Ltd for violating its orders, market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has asked the lender to deposit Rs158.68 crore along with interest in an escrow account and pay a penalty of Rs1 crore. SEBI found HDFC Bank violated its interim order and unilaterally invoked securities pledged by BRH Wealth Kreators Ltd (BRH) (formerly BMA Wealth Creators Ltd) and BRH Commodities Private Ltd (formerly BMA Commodities Pvt Ltd), worth Rs158.68 crore.
In the order, G Mahalingam, whole time member (WTM) of SEBI says, Given the unilateral action of HDFC Bank to avoid SEBI’s interim order, I am of the view that the alleged violations of SEBI circulars as also the failure to conduct due diligence by HDFC Bank to verify the ownership of securities pledged at the time of creation of the pledge, are not relevant for consideration at this point in time. As stated earlier, the validity of the pledge at the time of creation does not justify