Selling vacancies in violation of Regulation 4 Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, 8, 12 and Schedule Rules; The search revealed 126 incidents of empty sales during the review period. The company said that 126 incidents were not in fact empty sales, and some of the companies that represented arbitration on another stock exchange were sued by the company. The customer claimed the transaction, but the company could not do so. Present any evidence to support your argument in this, it was fully established that on 126 occasions there was an empty sale in violation of Regular 4 of the Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations 2002, sub-brokers' roll 8 Rule (iii). And Agent Registration Rules, 2001; the Company also failed to comply with Rule A5 of the Code of Conduct in the Third Schedule of Brokers and Agents Registration Regulations, 2001 R8 (b) of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules 2001 The company was fined Rs 50,000.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
