The Securities and Exchange Board of India has slapped a penalty of how many rupees (in crores) on the National Stock Exchange for investing in six companies unrelated or non-incidental to the stock exchange business without approval from the capital markets regulator?

The Securities and Exchange Board of India has slapped a penalty of how many rupees (in crores) on the National Stock Exchange for investing in six companies unrelated or non-incidental to the stock exchange business without approval from the capital markets regulator? Correct Answer Rs 6 crores

The correct answer is Rs 6 crores.

  • The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has slapped a penalty of Rs 6 crores on the National Stock Exchange (NSE).
  • It was fined for investing in six companies unrelated or non-incidental to the stock exchange business without approval from the capital markets regulator.
  • The exchange invested in Power Exchange India (PXIL), Computer Age Management Systems (CAMS), to name a few.

Related Questions

The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong’ arguments is/are ‘weak’ arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement: India's burgeoning shadow finance sector is likely to face a shake-up after defaults at one major lender battered the nation's financial markets in the past week and reinforced worries about credit risk. Industry officials and experts say they expect Indian regulators to cancel the licences of as many as 1,500 smaller non-banking finance companies because they don't have adequate capital, and to also make it more difficult for new applicants to get approval. Which of the following argument(s) stated support(s) the given fact? Arguments: I. Better capitalised and more conservatively run finance firms are likely to swallow up an increasing number of smaller rivals. That could make it difficult for many small borrowers to get loans, especially in the countryside where two-thirds of India's 1.3 billion people live and put the brakes on a surge in private consumption with a knock-on effect on growth.  II. The shadow banking sector now comprises more than 11,400 firms with a combined balance-sheet worth 22.1 trillion rupees ($304 billion) and is less strictly regulated than banks. It has been attracting new investors, particularly as the nation's banks have had to slow their lending as they seek to work through $150 billion of stressed assets.  III. Nearly 11,000 of India's NBFCs are small and medium-sized businesses with an asset base of less than 5 billion rupees. But the top 400, many of which are backed by banks and finance companies, control about 90 percent of the assets under management.
The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong’ arguments and which is/are ‘weak’ arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement: World’s largest beer maker Heineken NV, the majority partner of United Breweries with Vijay Mallya, is understood to have sought legal opinion over its right to appoint a chairman at the Indian company. Heineken and some of its advisers believe that the shareholder agreement between Mallya and the beer giant has become null and void after India’s Enforcement Directorate attached his shares as part of its legal action against the liquor baron. Which among the following arguments support the above statement in the best possible manner? Arguments: I. UBL has stopped sharing confidential information with Mallya and has said that he is no longer privy to any strategic developments.  II. The board of UBL, India’s biggest beer company, had asked Mallya to either step down or appoint a nominee after the Securities and Exchange Board of India barred wilful defaulters from holding key board positions last year.  III. The company is functioning well and operations are in good shape but it is not good corporate governance to have an acting chairman for so long.