sebi:AO/SBM/EAD-3/66/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Adjudication proceedings disposed of without penalty - cannot be proceeded with
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15C
- s. 279
- s. 446
Parties
- Hanil Era Textiles Ltd
Holding
The adjudication proceedings initiated against Hanil Era Textiles Ltd vide SCN dated June 14, 2012 under Section 15C of the SEBI Act cannot be proceeded with for want of leave of the winding-up Court and the matter is disposed of.
Full text
Page 2 of 8 APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 2. Shri D. Ravikumar was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer ( AO) vide Order dated April 24, 2012 under Section 19 read with Section 15-I of the SEBI Act and Rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Adjudication Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under the provisions of section 15C of the SEBI Act for the alleged failure on the part of the Noticee to redress the pending complaints received against it in SCORES and also its failure to upload the ATR in SCORES. Pursuant to the transfer of Shri D. Ravikumar, the undersigned was appointed as the AO in the matter vide order dated June 22,
Page 3 of 8 along with all the materials in possession to satisfy the AO about the fact that all the pending grievances were satisfactorily redressed. c. Subsequently, vide Order dated April 17, 2009, the AO concluded the adjudication proceedings, without imposing any penalty, on the basis of the submission made by the company. It was mentioned in the order that SEBI may initiate further proceedings if the complaints are not resolved by the company. d. The company vide letters dated May 05, 2009, October 30, 2009 and July 31, 2010 submitted incomplete Action Taken Report (ATR). Several bi- monthly reminders for redressal of investor complaints were sent to the company. Further, a letter dated August 11, 2010 was issued to the company for non-redressal of 477 investor complaints as on July 15, 2010. The company was called upon for a meeting on September 14, 2010 before OIAE-HO. Vide letter dated August 18, 2010, the compliance officer of the company had sought extension of 15 days’ time for submission of the details/information. The ATR format and particulars required to be mentioned in the ATR to treat the investor grievances as resolved were also informed to him. The company, vide its letter dated October 13, 2010, again submitted an incomplete ATR. e. On October 11, 2010, a special Business Reply exercise (BR) was initiated and BR cards were dispatched on January 25, 2011 to the complainants who had filed the complaints against the Noticee. As per the exercise, 353 cases we
Page 4 of 8 meeting, the compliance officer, Shri Gopal Krishna, was informed that 152 complaints (including complaints lodged in SCORES post BR Card exercise) were pending in SCORES as on March 28, 2012. The compliance officer sought additional time till May 15, 2012 for submission of the ATR, however, as on June 06, 2012, 154 complaints were still shown as pending in SCORES and no ATR was received from the company in SCORES. Based on the above, it is alleged that the company is repeatedly seeking more time to redress the complaints but in actuality, it was not taking necessary steps to redress the grievances despite being provided with sufficient opportunity.
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-3/66/2017. 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.