SWITCH SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION), SECP Ss — 2021 CLD 879 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation: 2021 CLD 879 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
Year: 2021
Reporter: CLD
Parties: SWITCH SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION), SECP Ss
Provisions referred to: Securities Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

SWITCH SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION), SECP Ss. 64 & 65---Securities Brokers (Licensing and Operations) Regulations, 2016, Regln. 16---Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited Regulations, Regln. 4.4.6---Circular No. 20 of 2017---Licensing requirement---Eligibility for licensing---Unauthorized deposit taking by securities brokers---Scope---Appellant was imposed upon a penalty and its license as a securities broker was suspended for accepting money from its customers and individuals with a pre-determined rate of return---Held; appellant could not indulge in any activity which its license did not permit in terms of Ss. 64(2) & 65(2) of Securities Act, 2015 and Regln. 4.4.6 of Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited Regulations---Regulation 16(2)(k) of the Securities Brokers (Licensing and Operations) Regulations, 2016, provided that the securities broker would not accept any money from a customer on a promise of pre-determined or guaranteed return---Appellant's argument that the Circular No. 20 of 2017 had given brokers a time period of 60 days to comply with the regulations and that the Regulations only had a prospective effect had no merit---Circular No. 20 of 2017 was only issued to warn brokers from further unauthorized deposit taking activity---Even before issuance of Circular No. 20 of 2017, the appellant was under an obligation to ensure that no unauthorized deposit was accepted---Appellant had given assurances that it would fully comply with the law and return the loans from customers but it failed to do so---No reason existed to interfere with the impugned order and the same was upheld---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2021 CLD

2021 CLD 675 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANKHAIR BUKSH RICE MILL VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss. 10, 9 & 7---Procedure of Banking Court---Suit for recovery---Application for leave to…
2021 CLD 920 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANMSD CAPITAL EQUITIES (PVT.) LIMITED VS The COMMISSIONER (SMD), SECP, ISLAMABAD S. 33---appeal---Condonation of delay---application before wr…
2021 CLD 920 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANMSD CAPITAL EQUITIES (PVT.) LIMITED VS The COMMISSIONER (SMD), SECP, ISLAMABAD S. 150---Disciplinary action in respect of licensed person---…
2021 CLD 920 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANMSD CAPITAL EQUITIES (PVT.) LIMITED VS The COMMISSIONER (SMD), SECP, ISLAMABAD S. 150---Disciplinary action in respect of licensed person---…
2021 CLD 855 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANAMPLE SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION), SECP S. 150---Securities (Leveraged Markets and Pledging) Rules,…
2021 CLD 775 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANMUHAMMAD IRFAN, CEO MIKON SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET\ DIVISION), SECP S. 33---appeal to the appellate Bench o…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English