sebi:AO/SM-LS/ERO/31/2017

SEBI · SEBI · 2015-03-06 · S Madhusudhanan, Adjudicating Officer

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 on Noticee under Section 15HB of SEBI Act

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 15H
• s. 15J

Holding

The Noticee was held liable for failing to obtain SCORES authentication in violation of SEBI Circulars CIR/OIAE/1/2012 and CIR/OIAE/1/2013, and a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 was imposed under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act.

Full text

Page 2 of 5 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING 5. A Show Cause Notice No. SEBI/ERO/SVK/ADJ/M-561/2015 dated March 06, 2015 (herein after referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee under rule 4 of the Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry be not held against them in terms of rule 4 of the Rules read with section 15-I of SEBI Act and penalty be not imposed under Section 15HB of SEBI Act for the violations alleged to have been committed by the Noticee. The said notice has neither returned undelivered nor is acknowledgment receipt available on record.

Page 3 of 5 Despite, issuance of public notice with regard to SCN and an opportunity for personal hearing, the Noticee has neither filed a reply nor appeared before me. On verifying from the department, it is also learnt that the Noticee has not obtained SCORES authentication even as on date. I note that this conduct demonstrates the lackasadical attitude of the Noticee and is unbecoming of a listed company.

Page 4 of 5 “Admittedly, the appellant company continues to be a listed company and, therefore, it was obligatory on part of appellant company to obtain SCORES authentication within the time stipulated by SEBI. However, the appellant has consistently failed and neglected to comply with the directions of SEBI and it is only when SEBI initiated penalty proceedings, the appellant chose to comply with the directions of SEBI. Therefore, in the facts of the present case appellant deserved higher penalty. However, after taking all the factors set out by the appellant as mitigating factors, the adjudicating officer of SEBI has imposed nominal penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- as against the imposable penalty of Rs. 1 crore. In such a case, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is excessive or unreasonable” (Emphasis supplied)

Source: SecMarx — sebi:AO/SM-LS/ERO/31/2017. 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.