- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Karvy Stock Broking Challenges Securities & Exchange Board Of India Order Before The Securities Appellate Tribunal
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Karvy Stock Broking has moved the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) through its law firm Vishesha Law Services, seeking relief to allow it to tender securities for settlement.Earlier, a Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) order had restrained the brokerage from using the Power of Attorney (PoA) of its clients after client defaults worth Rs2,000 crore, due to which...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Karvy Stock Broking has moved the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) through its law firm Vishesha Law Services, seeking relief to allow it to tender securities for settlement.
Earlier, a Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) order had restrained the brokerage from using the Power of Attorney (PoA) of its clients after client defaults worth Rs2,000 crore, due to which it is unable to finish the settlement process of the shares.
The SEBI order has banned Karvy Stock Broking from taking on new clients as well as executing trades for existing customers.
The SEBI passed its order after an investigation by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) allegedly found that Karvy had sold clients’ stocks pledged with it through associated entities and diverted the funds.
The SEBI had also directed depositories not to act upon any instruction given by Karvy Stock Broking in pursuance of the PoA given to it by its clients with immediate effect.
Depositories were also ordered not to allow transfer of securities from the depository participant account named Karvy Stock Broking with immediate effect.
The capital market regulator stated that transfer of securities should be permitted only to the respective beneficial owner who has paid in full against these securities under the supervision of NSE.


