To

1. Mr. Ravi Narain - Managing Director

National stock exchange of India
Mumbai

2. Regional Manager, NSE

Thappar House
New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Sub:- 1. Request for clarifications/ruling on issues raised in this letter.

2. Favourism & ignoring circulars/rules & regulations of NSE /ignoring directions of

law/making in-correct records in Arbitration proceedings by Smt Lakshmi Swaminathan, Mr.
R.K.Ahuja & Mr. S.P. Biswas Panel of Arbitrators.

I request to please issue the clarifications on points raised by me in this letter for filling an
application for setting aside award. I also wish to point out lapses intentionally committed by
panel of Arbitrators in Arbitration proceedings, S.K.Kapoor Vs M/s Sunglow Capital Services,
( case No D-007/2005) which gives an impression that they are either incompetents to be
Arbitrator or corrupt.

1. Applicant had challenged the client agreement with Mr. Anil Thukral produced by M/s
Sunglow Respondent at annexure-1, which as per applicant is fabricated and after
thought, as it is dated 01/04/2001 where as Mr. Anil Thukral started dealings with M/S
Sunglow much earlier, IT DOES NOT HAVE SIGNATURES OF WITNESSES, even
shares to applicants account were transferred earlier than 01/04/2004. Moreover
agreement is not on stamp paper but non-judicial stamps have been affixed, which is not
admissible under law. THIS IS TO COVER UP FABRICATION OF BACK DATED
AGREEMENT, AS STAMP PAPER WOULD HAVE EXPOSED THE RESPONDENT
DATE OF AGREEMENT.

Please give following clarifications/ interpretation.

a) Is this document is admissible as genuine document as per NSE rules?

b) Is it not possible that this has been fabricated later on to cover up their act of
dealing with Mr. Anil Thukral as agent/SUB-BROKER?
c) Form “INDIVIDUAL CLIENT REGISTRATION APPLICATION FORM”
is in-complete, does not have columns like Annual Income, Income tax No
Pan/GIR No, Market Value of portfolio as on-----, Whether registered with any
other broker are blank.

PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS IS CORRECT AS PER NSE/SEBI RULES AND

ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENT AS PER LAW.

2. That during Arbitration proceedings M/s Sunglow had disclosed that M/s Sunglow was
allowing their client Mr. Anil Thukral to operate under name and style of Mr. Mauz Malik
and also disclosed at Para 6.11 of submissions that payments were also made in name
of Mr. Mauz Malik and claimed that NSE/SEBI has conducted surprise check of records
of the respondent and found that no payment is due to S.K.KAPOOR-APPLICANT
 PLEASE CLARIFY & GIVE INTERPRETATION

aa) whether as per NSE RULES/BYLAWS/ a client registered with broker on one identity
can operate under ANY OTHER NAME? Does this amounts to dealing in fictitious name?

bb) Is this not possible that some other person Mr. Mauz Malik was client of M/s Sunglow
and now M/s Sunglow to cover up telling that Mr. Anil Thukral was also operating as Mr.
Mauz Malik? OR NAME OF MR. ANIL THUKRAL SUPERIMPOSED IN RECORDS OF
NSE BY BRIBING THE CONCERNED OFFICERS?

cc) Whether NSE officials & panel of Arbitrators have concluded that payments made by
respondent in name of Mr Mauz Malik were deemed to be in name of Mr Anil Thukral ?.

dd) that NSE Officials during surprise checking and panel of Arbitrators has concluded
that Mr Anil Thukral and Mr Mauz Malik was same person.

(2) Unbusinesslike Conduct

A Clearing Member shall be deemed guilty of un-businesslike conduct for any
of the following or similar acts or omissions namely :

(a) Fictitious Names : If he transacts his own business or the business of his
constituent in fictitious names or if he carries on business in more than one
clearing segment of the Clearing Corporation under fictitious names.

PL GIVE/ CLARIFICATION INTERPRETATION WHETHER AS PER ABOVE RULE M/S

SUNGLOW’S CONDUCT WAS UN-BUSINESS LIKE CONDUCT OR NOT.

3. Applicant had requested for following information from NSE

PARA-15 OF REJOINDER

Applicant prays hon’ble Arbitration Tribunal to direct respondent/NSE to give following

information/documents as these form part of pleadings of respondent and as per law
any document, which is part of the pleadings, should be provided to other party.

a) Copy of all transactions alleged to have been executed in name of Mr. Anil
Thukral/Mr. Mauj Malik

b) Details of payments made to Mr. Anil Thukral/Mr Mauz Malik or any third party.

c) What is the definition of intermediary/ sub-broker/agent?

d) Respondent has claimed that NSE/SEBI has conducted surprise check of records of
the respondent, Please direct NSE to give the details of transactions of the
respondent, with particularly following information

1) Number of registered clients of respondent

2) These clients in turn were dealing in shares of how many persons i.e.

i) buying shares in for how many persons

ii) transferring shares from d-mat accounts of how many persons
iii) getting shares purchased transferred to d-mat accounts of how many
persons
 I WAS VERBALLY ASSURED THAT WHILE PASSING ORDERS REQUIREMENT OF
THESE DOCUMENTS WILL BE TAKEN CARE, Unfortunately it seems that Arbitrators
have played fraud with me and did not consider these documents to favour respondent.

7.5.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in the any of the regulations, the

Exchange may at its discretion disseminate to other stock exchanges or regulatory
authorities or to the general public, any information including information relating to
any trades, dealings, settlement of dealings, accounting, disciplinary action
initiated/taken against Trading Members and/or other matters relevant for
enforcement or regulatory purposes.

As per above clause you are requested to please direct the concerned officers
of NSE to pl give me copy of all transactions alleged to have been carried out in
name of Mr. Anil Thukral & Mr. Mauz Malik , including records of payments made to
these persons by M/s Sunglow AS THIS IS CRIMINAL ACT.

4. That please give clarification/ interpretation that as per the definition of sub-broker in
SEBI act,
"Sub-broker" means any person not being a member of a stock
exchange who acts on behalf of a stock-broker as an agent or otherwise
for assisting the investors in buying, selling or dealing in securities
through such stock-brokers;

Mr. Anil Thukral was assisting dozens of persons in buying selling or dealing in securities
through M/s Sunglow.

WHETHER AS PER NSE/SEBI AS PER ABOVE DEFINITION GIVEN IN SEBI-ACT,

MR. ANIL THUKRAL WAS DEEMED TO BE WORKING AS SUB-BROKER OF M/S
SUNGLOW OR NOT ?

B.1) Circular No. 163, NSE/MEM/1591 April 20, 2000

5. If the trading member is dealing through any unregistered intermediary, such trading
members should discontinue trading/dealing for and/or on behalf of any unregistered
intermediary forthwith.

6. In case the unregistered intermediary is allowed to trade / deal by any trading member,
such trading member shall be fully and personally responsible for all the sale and/or
purchase contracts, whether contract notes or (purchase / sale notes) issued or not, and
for all the acts of commission and/or omission. Further, such trading members shall
render themselves liable for non-compliance of this requirement in terms of fines, penalty
and/or other disciplinary action as may be deemed necessary by the relevant authority.

Mr. Anil Thukral was unregistered intermediary and as per above circular Broker is
responsible for all acts of omissions/commissions of unregistered intermediary,
irrespective of fact that contract notes were not issued

PLEASE ALSO CLARIFY/ GIVE INTERPRETATION OF ORDERS

a) In what relation/capacity Mr. Anil Thukral was working with M/S Sunglow?

b) Can broker give trading terminal to any person for operations, without
registering him as sub-broker as per SEBI/NSE rules ?
 c) Can a Client deal with shares of third parties, buy shares for dozens of persons,
make payments from accounts of dozens of persons, receive payments by
cheques in name of dozens of persons, transfer shares from d-mat accounts of
dozens of persons into accounts of Broker and visa-versa. IF SO, WHAT IS
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUB-BROKER, AGENT & CLIENT.

IF A PERSON AS CLIENT CAN DO ALL THESE ACTS, WHAT IS USE OF SUB-

BROKER, WHY BROKER WILL REGISTER SUB-BROKERS?

5. That Panel of Arbitrators have alleged that applicant was doing “backdoor dealings”
and assumed that as per circular No NSEIL/Legal/4591dated Nov. 25, 2003, respondent
could accept the third party shares.

PLEASE GIVE clarifications / INTERPRETATION THAT

AA) that Panel of Arbitrators have CONSIDERED PARA 3.7 OF REJOINDER & concluded
that the as circular NoNSE/I&ID/2002/1 dated March 16, 2001 where in NSE has asked
member brokers to exercise caution while accepting deliveries from third party is not
applicable to respondent.

BB) that panel of Arbitrators have considered PARA 3.7 OF rejoinder,

the circular noNSE/ARBN/1354/199 dated December 27, 1999, where in NSE had
asked member brokers to take written consent from clients while crediting shares
received from persons other than beneficiary to the account of beneficiary AND
CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT HAS NOT VIOLATED THESE CIRCULARS.

CC) That Panel of Arbitrators have examined Para-7 , page 20 of rejoinder, where in NSE
has stated that

“ Trading member shall, when establishing relationship

with a new client, take reasonable steps to assess the
background, genuiness, financial soundness, investment
objectives of such client”

Letter of authorization produced at page-7 of Annexure-1 by respondent states as follow:-

AUTHORISATION TO MAINTAIN RUNNING ACCOUNT

“ I/We request you not to issue me/us cheque(s)/shares on daily

basis in case of credit balance and same may be retained/withhold
with you for the adjustment of any possible debit in my/our account of
any purchases/margin’s in future on subsequent date (s).

Further you are requested to receive/ make the payments of

funds/ shares on our behalf from/to any person, if any, as and
when desired by me/us”

Any honest person with a little knowledge of dealings in shares

will conclude that
a) Motive of Mr Anil Thukral was clear to buy/sell shares for number of persons.
 b) M/S Sunglow knew that Mr Anil Thukral is assisting the number of persons in buying
and selling shares through , it is why request was made to receive/make payments to
any person.

c) it was M/s Sunglow who were dealing “back door” with Mr Anil Thukral as Agent
who was bringing clients to respondent”

d) M/S Sunglow did not check genuines, financial soundness and investment
objectives.

Any honest person will conclude that motive of Mr. Anil Thukral was to act as un-
registered sub-broker, which panel of Arbitrators have intentionally avoided to favour
respondent.

6. Arbitrators in Para 11 of award stated that respondent on its parts also admits the
receipt of money and shares. At Para 15 stated, “ above findings will also apply to the
cheque and cash payments received”

IT MEANS THAT RESPONDENTS WERE RECEIVING CASH, WHICH IS AGAINST

NSE/SEBI RULES. WHAT ACTION NSE IS TAKING AGAINST BROKER?

Above information is urgently required for challenging arbitration award in competent

court.

Please note that if I do not receive any reply within 15 days of dispatch of this letter, it
will be assumed that NSE intentionally does not want to reply and clarify the points to save
member broker, in these circumstances I will be free to file writ petition in Delhi High Court
seeking directions from High Court to clarify points raised in this letter AND also free to file
criminal proceedings against NSE officials. THIS LETTER MAY PLEASE BE TREATED AS
NOTICE FOR FILING CASES AS REFERRED ABOVE.

S.K.KAPOOR
3, Sunshine Apartment
A-3, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063

Copy to 1. Hon’ble Law Minister, Alternative dispute redressal systems will fail if the persons
who take decisions are corrupt and favour one party blindly.

2. Secretary Ministry of Company affairs. uksssus@nic.in, with request to please direct

Chairman-SEBI to please give ruling on working of Mr Anil Thukral as unregistered
sub-broker and take action u/s 24 of SEBI-act.
3. Shri M. Damodran- Chairman-SEBI
SHRI M.DAMODARAN
CHAIRMAN, SEBI
MITTAL COURT, “B” WING
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI

SUB:- 1. Request for proper inquiry into my complaint against M/S SUNGLOW
CAPITAL SERVICE LTD, 4382/4B 2NDFLOOR,MURARILAL STREET, ANSARI ROAD,
DARYAGANJ-DELHI 110002 and their agent/ sub-broker MR. ANIL THUKRAL r/o C-219
Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi-110024 and MR B.R.ARORA r/o flat no 265, GH-13, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi, and register case against them as per section 24 of SEBI-ACT-1992.

2. Regarding interpretations to issues raised in this letter.

Dear Sir,

I have sent number of letters and e-mails, requesting for full fledged enquiry against M/s
Sunglow Capital services Ltd and Mr Anil Thukral/Mr B.R.Arora, who were dealing in
securities in violation to various sections of SEBI-act/rules and regulations.

SEBI has neither enquired the allegations of illegal trading in securities/dabba trading by
above persons nor registered any case under section 24 of SEBI-act.

I request to please give me ruling

i) on question of interpretation of definition of “sub-broker” as defined in SEBI-act

ii) Whether SEBI has enquired about functioning of Mr Anil Thural/Mr. B.R. Arora as
illegal intermediary/agent/sub-broker of M/S sunglow? If so, what is outcome? If
not, Why?.
iii) Whether the client agreement with Mr. Anil Thukral submitted by M/S Sunglow is
valid document ? (copy enclosed)
iv) and other violations of rules/circulars by M/s Sunglow , Mr Anil Thukral/
B.R.Arora.

As I feel I have been harassed a lot by SEBI-officials by avoiding to take proper action and
reply to my clarifications. In these circumstance, in case I do not receive any reply within 15
days of dispatch of this letter, I will have no alternative but to file Writ Petition in Delhi High
Court seeking directions to SEBI to investigate the matter and file case against accused
persons U/s 24 of act, at entire your risk and cost.

Thanks

S.K.KAPOOR
3, Sunshine Apartment
A-3, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063

CC:- Secretary Ministry of Company affairs. uksssus@nic.in, with request to please

direct Chairman-SEBI to please give ruling on working of Mr Anil Thukral as unregistered
sub-broker and take action u/s 24 of SEBI-act.