sebi:ADJ/SKS/83892/2007
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed of Rs. 50,000
Provisions invoked
- s. 24
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 11C(6)
- s. 11C
- s. 12
Parties
- M/s. A.J. Finance Ltd.
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held M/s. A.J. Finance Ltd. liable for failure to furnish information as required by the summons and letter dated 08.03.2004 issued by the Investigating Authority, in violation of section 11C(3) of the SEBI Act, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 2.0 Inquiry and Show Cause Notice 2.1 The undersigned had issued a Show Cause Notice vide letter no. ADJ/SKS/83892/2007 dated 09.01.2007 under rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules. 2.2 In the said SCN, it was, inter alia, alleged: a) That the Investigating Authority had issued summons dated March 08, 2004 requiring the noticee to furnish information stated in the covering letter to the summons bearing no. IVD/ID3/PKB/JJS/DSQB/4745/2004 dated 08.03.2004 to the Investigating Authority before March 31, 2004. b) That the Investigating Authority had also advised the noticee that if it omits to produce the books of accounts and/or documents as required by the Investigating Authority, SEBI shall initiate adjudication proceedings against the noticee and it could be levied the monetary penalty as provided in section 15A of the SEBI Act. Further, criminal proceedings may also be launched against the noticee under section 11C(6) read with section 24 of the SEBI Act in respect of the alleged violation. c) That by letters dated April 08, 2004and April 24, 2004 SEBI had extended the time to furnish the information till April 16, 2004 and again till April 27, 2004. d) That the noticee had received the summons dated March 08, 2004 on March 16, 2004. However, it failed to furnish the information before the Investigating Authority as required by the said summons. Thus, it has violated section 11C (3) of the SEBI Act. 2.3 In terms of rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules, the noticee was adv
Page 3 of 9 further advised by the said notice of hearing that if the opportunity of personal hearing is not availed, it would be presumed that the noticee does not have any explanation to offer and the matter would be proceeded ex-parte and completed on the basis of material available on record. 2.5 The said notice of hearing was sent to the noticee by way of Registered Post, Acknowledgement Due. The same had not been returned undelivered. 2.6 Since the noticee failed to avail the opportunity of hearing on the date, time and place fixed in the matter another opportunity of hearing was given to the noticee under rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules and another date for personal appearance and producing documents or evidence in the matter was fixed and the same was communicated vide letter no. ADJ/SKS/97859/2007 dated 03.07.2007. It was also advised by the second notice of hearing that vide Circular no. EFD/ED/Cir-1/2007 dated April 20, 2007 (also available at www.sebi.gov.in), SEBI has come out with guidelines for passing of consent orders and if the noticee wished to avail the consent process, it may apply in the prescribed form given in the said Circular. 2.7 The said notice of hearing was returned undelivered by the Singapore Post with remarks “Moved”. 2.8 The said notice of hearing was also hosted on the website of SEBI under the heading “Unserved Notices/ Summons” so as to enable the noticee to avail the opportunity of hearing. However, the noticee failed to avail this oppor
Page 4 of 9 was despatched through Registered Post, Acknowledgment Due at the following address – M/s A.J. Finance Ltd. No. 151, Chinswee Road, 09-08, Manhattan House, Singapore – 169876. 3.3 The said summon was received by the noticee on 16.03.2004. It is noted that the letters dated 08.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 whereby the time for furnishing the documents, as required by the covering letter of the summons, was extended to 16.04.04 and 27.04.04 respectively, were not served upon the noticee since they were returned undelivered. I find that even though the summons vide SEBI letter no. IVD/ID3/PKB/JJS/DSQB/4745/2004 dated 08.03.2004 was served upon the noticee on 16.03.2004, it failed to furnish the information as sought by the Investigating Authority within the time specified by the said summons dated March 08, 2004. In this context, I have examined the provisions of Sections 11C of the SEBI Act. The relevant provisions of section 11C are as follows: “Investigations
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:ADJ/SKS/83892/2007. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.