sebi:EAD-2/AO/99/2012
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 the Noticee for failure to redress investor grievances
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15C
Holding
The Noticee was held to have violated Section 15C of the SEBI Act by failing to redress investor grievances within the time specified by SEBI and by not submitting the ATR as per the prescribed proforma, and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 was imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 one month between dispatches. However the Noticee resubmitted the same ATR as previously filed with SEBI. SEBI ascertained that the Noticee had not resolved the complaints.
Page 3 of 6 6. As the Noticee has not put up any defence or challenged the SCN, it can be assumed that the charges levelled in the SCN have been accepted by the Noticee. This is in accordance with the principle laid by Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Classic Credit Ltd. v. SEBI [2007] 76 SCL 51 (SAT - MUM.) wherein it was inter-alia held that
Page 4 of 6 10. I find from Annexure II to the SCN that SEBI vide letter dated April 07, 2011 had advised the Noticee to redress 51 investor grievances within 15 days of receipt of the said letter and submit ATR. The Noticee vide letter dated May 07, 2011 asked copies of the complaints. Copies of seven complaints were handed over to the representative of the company on June 09, 2011. The Noticee was asked to seek confirmation with respect to the remaining 44 complaints.
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:EAD-2/AO/99/2012. 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.