sebi:AO/SBM/EAD-3/57/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation not established; no monetary penalty imposed; matter disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 12A
- s. 12
- s. 15H
- s. 260
- s. 255
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Shri Harish Nanndkishor Surekha
Holding
The alleged violations of Section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations were not established against Shri Harish Nanndkishor Surekha and therefore he is not liable for monetary penalty under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 16 2. Vide Order dated June 16, 2014, Hon’ble SAT, inter alia, observed as under: “Counsel for SEBI fairly states that though there is nothing on record to suggest that the alleged reply of the appellant dated March 3, 2013, copy of which is annexed at page 52 of the appeal paper book was in fact received in the office of SEBI, since the facts set out in the said reply go to the root of the matter, in the interest of justice appropriate orders be passed for considering the facts set out in the said reply dated March 3, 2013. In this view of the matter, impugned order dated December 31, 2013 is quashed and set aside qua the appellant only with direction to the AO to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.”
Page 3 of 16 the escrow account of BLL, the said amount of Rs 8 crores along with interest of Rs 25 lakhs were paid back by BLL to these entities towards the repayment of the ICDs. It is alleged that the above entities had fraudulently acted as layers/conduits for round tripping of Rs 8 crore in the guise of ICDs, which were shown as amount lent to BLL as ICDs. Therefore, it is alleged that an amount of Rs 8.25 crores were siphoned off from the IPO proceeds of BLL causing wrongful loss to the investors of BLL.
Page 4 of 16 and 4(2)(e) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFUTP Regulations'). SEBI has, therefore, initiated adjudication proceedings against the Noticee under the provisions of Section 15 HA of the SEBI Act to inquire into and adjudge his alleged violation of the aforementioned provisions of law in the matter of his dealings in BLL. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING
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:AO/SBM/EAD-3/57/2017. 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.