To

1. Mr. Ravi Narain- Managing Director & other Board of Directors.

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd
Mumbai

2. Mr. Dhruv K. Patil

Asstt Vice President-IGV
National Stick Exchange of India Ltd
Mumbai

3. Regional Manager National stock Exchange of India

Thappar House
Connaught place, New Delhi

4. Smt Laxami Swaminathan

5. Mr. R.K.Ahooja,
6. Mr. S.P Biswas, panel of Arbitrators
c/o
National stock Exchange of India
Thappar House
Connaught place, New Delhi

7. M/S Sunglow Capital Services Ltd

Ansari Road Daryaganj, Delhi

Subject:- Notice for filing case under section IPC

All of you hatched a conspiracy, joined as an accomplice with M/s

Sunglow Capital Services Ltd accused no-7 in view to cheat, commit
fraud, ignored directions of law to injure the complainant, committed
gross negligence to injure the complainant, abetted criminal
activities of accused no-7.

Your acts mentioned in following paras confirm having committed

offences u/s 34, 120, 167, 320 and other relevant sections of IPC.

1. I had sent complaint against M/S Sunglow Capital Services Ltd,

member broker of NSE on 25/08/2003 to NSE & SEBI.

2. NSE sent me letter on 02/09/2003 asking to give some information

which I had complained that broking member/his agents did not
provide, I replied on 22/09 giving all required information available
with me and clarifying my position on balance points.

3. Again I received letter on 8/11/03 asking for same information, I

again replied on 18/11/2003 clarifying on issues and gave comments
on reply of M/s Sunglow.
4. Again on 05/12/03 I received letter from NSE, asking for same
information and intentionally ignoring my reply. NSE intentionally did
not reply to queries raised by me, which if replied would have
resulted in action against broking member.

5. NSE again sent me letter on 05/01/04 signing on same tune and

intentionally ignoring my reply, NSE on 19/01/2004 again sent letter
asking for the same information which I had replied on 15/01/2004,
although NSE acknowledged the letter but intentionally ignored the
contents proving without any reasonable doubt that NSE intentionally
avoided to take action on issues, NSE was legally supposed to take
as per law .

6. NSE’s letter dated 19/01/2004 was again replied on 29/01/04. NSE

again sent a letter on 04/2004 asking for same information and again
enclosing the reply of M/S Sunglow dated 20/02/2004 and taking
vindicating and false stand that since I was dealing with Mr. Anil
Thukral/Mr B.R.Arora who are not registered sub-broker, NSE can
not take any action.

7. NSE intentionally to favour M/S Sunglow ignored my detailed reply dt

29/04/2004 giving clarifications on stand of M/S Sunglow, evidence
that Mr. Anil Thukral/ Mr. B.R. Arora were agents of M/s Sunglow and
it was for M/S Sunglow to register complainant as client and allot
unique customer ID. NSE intentionally ignored the violations of rules
and regulations of NSE/SEBI by member broker to favour M/S
Sunglow & harm/injure complaint.

8. SEBI in an adjudicating proceedings has held M/s Sunglow as guilty

of not registering complainant as client and not resolving complaint in
time and imposed penalty of Rs one lakh, this was informed to NSE
vide letter dated 14/09/2004, but NSE intentionally ignored and did
not reply.

9. NSE intentionally to favour M/s Sunglow did not investigate charges

of involvement in dabba trading by M/S Sunglow, NSE did not
investigate that brokers engaged in dabba trading register their
agents as client.

10. Economics offences wing Delhi Police sent NSE file containing my
complaint which was against Mr. B.R.Arora, Mr. Anil Thukral & M/s
Sunglow, although with me NSE maintained that NSE can not take
action against .Mr. Anil Thukral/ Mr. B.R.Arora as they are not NSE
registered sub-brokers, but intentionally to favour M/s Sunglow sat
on file and did not take any action, NSE did not inform EOW Delhi
police that NSE does not take action on criminal matters or on
matters concerning to persons not registered as sub-broker with
NSE.
11. NSE & panel of Arbitrators intentionally to favour M/s Sunglow and
harm/injure complainant, ignored various circulars of NSE/SEBI,
which if referred proved that M/S Sunglow had employed Mr. Anil
Thukral/Mr B.R. Arora as agent or illegal sub-broker., Some of
circulars, rules ignored by NSE are given below:-

As per SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (STOCK

BROKERS AND SUB-BROKERS RULES 1972, "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 THE INVESTORS IN

BUYING SELLING SHARES THROUGH M/S SUNGLOW, ON BASIS
OF ABOVE DEFINITION, HE WAS ACTING AS SUB-BROKER.
SINCE HE IS NOT REGISTERED WITH SEBI AS SUCH HE WAS
ACTING AS ILLEGAL INTERMEDIARY.

Trading member’s responsibility for Partners, Agents and Employees

(b) A trading member shall be fully responsible for the acts

and omissions of its authorised officials, attorneys, agents,
authorised representatives and employees and if any such
act or omission be held by the relevant authority to be one
which if committed or omitted by the trading member would
subject it to any of the penalties as provided in the Bye
Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Exchange then such
trading member shall be liable therefore to the same
penalty to the same extent as if such act or omission had
been done or omitted by itself.

SINCE AS PER DEFINITION OF SUB-BROKER, AS PER

SEBI BROKERS & RULES 1972, MR. ANIL THUKRAL WAS SUB-
BROKER OF M/S SUNGLOW AND AS PER NSE RULES M/S
SUNGLOW IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTS AND OMISSIONS
OF MR. ANIL THUKRAL NSE OFFICIALS AND ITS PANEL OF
ARBITRATORS CORRUPTLY TO FAVOUR M/S SUNGLOW
IGNORED THIS ISSUE.

National Stock Exchange of India Limited Byelaws 10-CHAPTER V

TRADING MEMBERS

© A trading member shall not deal with sub-brokers

who are not registered with SEBI nor allow operation of
its trading terminal at any office other than its registered
office, branch offices and the offices of its registered sub-
brokers.
 NSE OFFICIALS HAVE INTENTIONALLY TO FAVOUR THE
ACCUSED AND HARM COMPLAINANT IGNORED THE EVIDENCE
WHICH PROVES THAT M/S SUNGLOW WERE DEALING WITH
SUB-BROKER NOT REGISTERED WITH SEBI AND MR. ANIL
THUKRAL WAS OPERATING TRADING TERMINAL AS
UNREGISTERED INTERMEDIARY. I HAVE TAPE-RECORDED
STATEMENT OF MR. ANIL THUKRAL’S BROTHER IN, WHICH HE
HAS TOLD THAT M/S SUNGLOW HAS STOPPED COMPUTER
TERMINAL AFTER I SENT COMPLAINT.

12. NSE intentionally ignored following circulars to favour M/s

Sunglow and arrive at false and misleading conclusion that M/s
sunglow were receiving shares transferred from my d-mat account
for accounts of their client Mr. Anil Thukral

Circular No. NSE/I&ID/2001/1 Dated: March 16, 2001

Members are, therefore, inter alias, advised, besides the other risk
containment measures:

(i)
(ii)
(iii) to exercise caution while accepting deliveries from an account
other than the beneficiary account of the concerned
constituent/sub-broker.

NSE Circular :- NSE/ARBN/1354/1999 December 27, 1999

To All Trading Members

Re: Dealings with constituents

Dear Member,

It has been observed that in certain cases Trading Members do not

adopt the due process of maintaining client accounts and other
formalities in respect of the deals executed by them on behalf of their
constituents on the Exchange. Trading Members are therefore advised
:

1) to maintain separate client accounts for each of their constituents in

respect of the deals executed on the Exchange and that debits/credits
from one client account should not be transferred to another client
account without obtaining an authorisation in writing from both
the clients for such transfer of debit/credit.

My other broker always ask for giving in writing from the persons from
whose account if any share is transferred to my account with that
Broker. M/s sunglow never asked for such an authorization. NSE have
intentionally to favour M/S sunglow ignored violation of above circulars,
Evidence has been given by complainant that M/S Sunglow were
 receiving shares and cheques from complainants d-mat accounts and
did exercise caution while accepting securities from my account.

13. Complaint by Constituent

• (10) When a complaint has been lodged by a constituent with the
relevant authority that any trading member has failed to implement his
dealings, the relevant authority shall investigate the complaint and if it
is satisfied that the complaint is justified it may take such disciplinary
action as it deems fit.

NSE OFFICIALS HAVE INTENTIONALLY TO FAVOUR M/S

SUNGLOW IGNORED THE COMPLAINT REGARDING
IMPLEMENTATION OF DEALINGS AND HENCE BECAME
ACCOMPLICE IN CRIME

14. I had been asking NSE to give following clarifications: -

i) Can a client deal with shares of 10-12 persons, buy sell shares for
number of persons, transfer shares from d-mat accounts of number
of persons into account of broker, and visa-versa, give cheques from
accounts of 10-12 persons to Broker and get cheques in name of 10-
12 persons from broker. IF SO, WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SUB-BROKER / AGENT AND CLIENT?

WHY ONE SHOULD BECOME REGISTERED SUB-BROKER, IF

ONE PERSON CAN OPERATE A TRADING TERMINAL AS CLIENT
AND DEAL IN SHARES OF 10-12 PERSONS WITHOUT SHOWING
ANY MONEY TRANSACTIONS INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT?

ii) Please reply whether NSE takes cases where money has been paid
to Broker, Shares given to Broker but no transactions has taken place
in name of the person who has paid money & given shares.

iii) Please give me evidence/ copy of NSE investigation report based on

which NSE have concluded that Mr. Anil Thukral/Mr B.R.Arora were
not agents / unauthorized sub-broker of M/s Sunglow.

iv) Please give me evidence based on which NSE have concluded that
I was giving shares & money into account of Mr. Anil Thukral Please
give me copy of authorization letter if any produced by M/s Sunglow
to establish that I was giving shares in account of Mr. Anil Thukral( As
per NSE circular NSE Circular :- NSE/ARBN/1354/1999 December
27, 1999

v) Please give me evidence that NSE has checked future trading records
of M/S Sunglow & were not engaged in dabba trading.
vi) PLEASE REPLY WHETHER I CAN AVAIL THE ARBITRATION
FACILITIES OF EXCHANGE, IN VIEW OF FINDINGS OF AO-SEBI
MR. ANANT BARUA THAT M/S SUNGLOW FAILED TO REGISTER
COMPLAINANT AS CLIENT & FINED Rs ONE LAKH.

vii) IN CASE NSE CANNOT TAKE ACTION AGAINST MR. ANIL

THUKRAL/MR. BR ARORA, WHY NSE ARE NOT SENDING FILE
BACK TO EOW DELHI POLICE. PLEASE INFORM WHETHER NSE
IS WILLING TO SEND BACK FILE TO EOW DELHI POLICE WITH
NSE COMMENTS OR NOT.

viii) Please confirm that NSE has investigated my complaint against M/s
Sunglow and they have not violated any provisions of SEBI Act, rules,
NSE rules & regulations and circulars.

NSE intentionally in view to favour the accused no-7 and aid

him with committing criminal breach of trust, cheating, did not
give reply to my above queries.

15. NSE intentionally to favour M/s Sunglow and harm/injure

undersigned ignored own Circular No. 163,
NSE/MEM/1591dated April 20, 2000, some of provisions are
reproduced below:-

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.

Although as per above circular trading member is responsible for all

sale and or purchase whether contract notes issued or not, NSE to
harm/injure the undersigned insisted on providing contract notes
although undersigned again and again in all letters informed NSE that
trading member/ his agents/intermediary did not provide contract
notes., Panel of Arbitrators corruptly to favour M/s Sunglow and justify
stand of accused no-1 , 2 & 3 intentionally ignored this issue.
 NSE appointed accused no 3, 4 & 5, their henchmen as
Arbitrators, who to justify NSE’s omissions and commissions
gave award ignoring same issues/circulars and act/rules etc
which NSE had been ignoring to favour member broker

16. Corrupt practices committed by Panel of Arbitrators were

brought to NSE’s & SEBI’s notice vide my letter dated 10th
October, 2005, but NSE did not take any action confirming NSE
involvement in conspiracy with M/S Sunglow & Arbitrators to
cheat & harm/injure me.

17. NSE gave false statement to SEBI & Delhi Police that complainant
could not provide evidence of payments, where as I had given
complete details of cheques given by me. NSE just to harass insisted
on getting certificated from Bank, whereas as I had given in writing
that these cheques have been debited into my accounts and I will
give certificate for cheques which M/S Sunglow dispute having not
received.

18. NSE in reply dated Oct-2005 to Ms Deepti Agarwal of SEBI

disclosed that Delhi Regional officer had fined M/S Sunglow for
dealing with unregistered intermediary. I HAD BEEN ASKING THIS
CLARIFICATION SINCE DEC-2003, BUT NSE DID NOT
INVESTIGATE AND PROVIDE ME WITH THIS INFORMATION TO
INJURE & HARM ME.

19. You and Arbitrators to favour M/s Sunglow and harm/injure

complainant ignored /overlooked that M/s Sunglow disclosed that
shares transferred by complainant were sold in account of some Mr.
Mauz Malik

i) there is no evidence on record that the complainant ever knew

Mr. Mauz Malik or ever dealt through him.

ii) There is no evidence on records to establish that Mr. Anil

Thukral and Mr. Mauz Malik are one and same person. There is
possibility that some other person was client of the M/S Sunglow
and now to cover up their dealing with Mr. Anil Thukral as illegal
intermediary, showing him as client by “superimposing name of
Anil Thukral”

iii) If it is assumed that Mr. Anil Malik and Mr. Mauz Malik was
one and same person, It means that Mr. Anil Thukral was having
two accounts, one in name of Mr. Anil Thukral and another in
name of Mr. Mauz Malik and this was under knowledge of the
M/S Sunglow M/S SUNGLOW, which is criminal act, but the
Arbitral Tribunal have ignored. Moreover dealing under
fictitious name is fraud and un-business like conduct of the
 M/S Sunglow.
Dealing with fictitious name is crime, you and Arbitrators
intentionally ignored this criminal act of M/S Sunglow, which as
per law all of you were supposed to report to the notice of law
enforcing authorities.

THIS FACT WAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO NOTICE OF NSE &

PANEL OF ARBITRATORS BUT FOR ABETTING CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES OF M/S SUNGLOW ALL OF YOU IGNORED THIS.

20. It was brought to NSE’S notice and into notice of Arbitrators that the
client-member agreement between Mr. Anil Thukral & M/S
Sunglow, placed at Annexure-1 by the M/S Sunglow, in reply to
the submissions of the complainant is illegal, fabricated document
and not admissible under law and is against statuary provisions of
SEBI/NSE rules, as this is not on stamp paper, signatures of the
witness are not there. The date of stamp papers would have exposed
the M/S Sunglow. Moreover Mr. Anil Thukral was dealing with M/s
Sunglow from year 2000 whereas agreement is dated 01/04/2001.
This document is after thought to show Mr. Anil Thukral as client,
where as, he was sub-broker/agent

All three Arbitrators over-looked and did not mention in

award that applicant has challenged this document and disputed
that Mr. Thukral was “Client of M/S Sunglow. The Arbitrators
have intentionally ignored this vital issue. You and Arbitrators to
corruptly favour member broker and harm/injure me
intentionally admitted fabricated and false evidence knowingly
that dopcument is fabricated and false, which is crime under
IPC.

21. You and Arbitrators to favour M/s Sunglow and harm/injure me have
ignored the documentary evidence on record placed at Para-7, page
20 of rejoinder of the complainant, wherein complainant re-produced
NSE circular, which stated that: -

“ Trading member shall, when establishing

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

Letter of authorization produced at page-7 of Annexure-1 by M/S

Sunglow alleged to had been given by Mr. Anil Thukral 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).

Arbitrators intentionally and corruptly to favour M/S Sunglow,

accused complainant of entering into illegal agreement for not
making full payment of purchases of shares, WHERE AS ABOVE
DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY M/S SUNGLOW, PROVES THAT M/S
SUNGLOW HAD AUTHORISED MR. ANIL THUKRAL TO KEEP
SHARES AS MARGIN FOR PURCHASES IN FUTURE & HENCE
GIVING CREDIT FACILITY.

2nd Para of authorization reads as: -

Further you are also requested to

receive/make the payment of
funds/shares on our behalf from/to any
person, if any, as and when desired by
me/us.

The above document clearly highlights motive of MR. ANIL THUKRAL

to act as intermediary of many persons. Why he was asking to
receive/make payment of funds/shares on his behalf from/to any
person? Any person with applying little common sense will
judge the motive that Mr. Anil Thukral wanted to act as
intermediary of many persons and operating as “back door sub-
broker of the M/S Sunglow” but the Arbitral Tribunal have
ignored this to favour the M/S Sunglow, instead of the M/S
Sunglow, tribunal has un-necessary blamed the complainant of
having “back-door” dealings, which speaks of malafides of the
Arbitral tribunal.

M/S Sunglow in his member-client agreement placed at Annexure-1

of his submissions mentioned that

“Whereas member has satisfied and shall

continue to satisfy himself about the
genuiness and financial soundness of the
client and investment objectives relevant to
the services to be provided. ”

As per above clause of the agreement, M/S Sunglow had

satisfied himself regarding genuineness of client and
when client was giving third party cheques and shares.
Why M/S Sunglow did not check reasons for giving third
 party cheques & shares by Mr. Anil Thukral, if he was
financially sound & his investment objectives were to
deal as Client?

IT MEANS M/S SUNGLOW WAS NOT BOTHERED IF THE

CLIENT STEALS OR ACQUIRES PROPERTY/ SHARES
BY FRAUDULENT/UNFAIR MEANS, M/S SUNGLOW WAS
ONLY CONCERNED WITH GETTING BUSINESS. THE
ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAS IGNORED THIS TO FAVOUR
M/S SUNGLOW.

ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IGNORED THIS DOCUMENT TO

FAVOUR M/S SUNGLOW AND HARM/ INJURE
COMPLAINANT.

22. You and Arbitrators intentionally to favour M/S Sunglow and

harm/injure Complainant ignored the request to provide following
information/ documents from NSE/respondent

i) Copy of all transactions alleged to have been executed in

name of Mr. Anil Thukral/Mr Mauj Malik

ii) Details of payments made to Mr. Anil Thukral/Mr Mauz Malik

or any third party.

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

iv) M/S Sunglow has claimed that NSE/SEBI has conducted

surprise check of records of the M/S Sunglow; please direct
NSE to give the details of transactions of the M/S Sunglow, with
particularly following information

v) Number of registered clients of M/S Sunglow

vi) These clients in turn were dealing in shares of how many

persons i.e.

a) Buying shares in for how many persons

b) Transferring shares from d-mat accounts of how many
persons
c) Getting shares purchased transferred to d-mat accounts of
how many persons

NSE OFFICIALS TO HARM AND INJURE COMPLAINANT DID NOT

PROVIDE CLARIFICATIONS SOUGHT IN VARIOUS LETTERS,
WHICH IS AN OFFENCE.

Arbitral Tribunal intentionally to favour M/S Sunglow falsely concluded

 “ It is not the case of the complainant that he
had not given any contra instructions to Mr.
Anil Thukral nor has he called him as witness .”

The complainant in his application at Para-9 and in rejoinder at Para

3.10, 3.11, 6.6, 6.8, 6.10 & 8.5 again and again stated that he had
never authorized any body to sell these shares or credit shares /money
into account of Mr. Anil Thukral. Further applicant had also mentioned
that Mr. Anil Thukral had admitted in front of applicant that they were
selling shares of their own without knowledge of applicant, as shares
prices were falling, they used to buy back and pocket the profits, when
after May-2003, when shares prices jumped suddenly, they were
caught on wrong foot and could not buy back shares. So the
complainant had given contra instructions to Mr. Anil Thukral not
to sell these shares, which is on records, and the Arbitral Tribunal
has internally ignored this. OR incompetent so could not make
out that applicant had given contra instructions.

You and Arbitrators to favour M/S Sunglow and harm/injure

me ignored the copy of Authorisation given by Mr. Anil
Thukral to M/s Sunglow to conclude that
“ he entered into irregular agreements, on his
own admission, f or not making full payments
for his purchases. He cannot , therefore claim
any advantage arising from his own wrong
dealings, as they were conducted through “back
door”.

The Arbitral Tribunal has made lame excuse to favour the M/s
Sunglow that “he entered into irregular agreement”, Any person
having knowledge of shares dealings will know that there is
general practice with brokers allowing clients to buy/sell shares
on Margins, the dealings were not thru back door as alleged,
On one hand the Arbitral Tribunal in award at-14 said
“applicant is claiming that agreement that he would
not make full payment for his purchases and on
that account shares were to be treated not as
payment for his purchases but as “security”.
However no such agreement has been
produced by him. We can, therefore, only
conclude that these were transferred not by
way of security but indeed by way of payments
for purchases made through Mr. Anil Thukral.”
 When there was no agreement, HOW THEN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
CAN SAY THAT “he entered into irregular agreements, on his own
admission, for not making full payments for his purchases”?
Arbitral tribunal had to either to accept that there was an
agreement or reject that there was no agreement. Arbitral tribunal
has tried to favour the M/s Sunglow by accepting at one Para that
there was an agreement and at other Para that there was no
agreement

Arbitrators to harm & injure me falsely stated that applicant had

experience in dealing at different Stock Exchanges.

I never made such a statement and There is no evidence on

records and applicant never stated that he has experience in
dealing at different stock exchanges.

ALL OF YOU (NSE OFFICIALS & ARBITRATORS) BY IGNORING

DIRECTIONS OF LAW TO HARM & INJURE ME MADE THEMSELVES
ACCOMPLICE IN CRIME AND ARE LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED AS
PER PROVISIONS OF IPC.

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