sebi:EAD-2/DSR/VS/899/2018
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 for violation of SEBI Circulars regarding SCORES authentication
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15I
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 15C
Parties
- Trans Agrotech Limited
Holding
The Noticee, Trans Agrotech Limited, violated SEBI Circulars by failing to obtain SCORES authentication, attracting a monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act. The allegation of violation under Section 15C was not tenable as the precondition of being called upon by the Board in writing was unfulfilled.
Full text
______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 7 earlier Circulars / directions. The said Circular dated December 18, 2014 further, inter alia, stated that failure by any listed company to obtain SCORES authentication would not only be deemed as non-redressal of investor grievances, but, also indicate wilful avoidance of the same. The aforementioned SEBI Circulars are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “SEBI Circulars".
______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 7 6. In the interest of natural justice, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the noticee on January 09, 2018. Till date, no reply or communication has been received from the Noticee. Vide the said SCN/notices of hearing, it was clearly indicated that in case of failure to submit reply or to appear for the hearing, the case would be decided ex-parte on the basis of the material available on record. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Classic Credit Ltd. vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 68 of 2003 decided on December 08, 2006) has, inter alia, observed that, "............ the appellants did not file any reply to the second show-cause notice. This being so, it has to be presumed that the charges alleged against them in the show cause notice were admitted by them”. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Tayal & Others vs SEBI (Appeal No. 68 of 2013 decided on February 11, 2014), has also, inter-alia, observed that: “........... appellants have neither filed reply to show cause notices issued to them nor availed opportunity of personal hearing offered to them in the adjudication proceedings and, therefore, appellants are presumed to have admitted charges leveled against them in the show cause notices...”. Therefore, I proceed further based on the mate
______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 7 FINDINGS 8. The first issue for consideration is whether the Noticee has violated the provisions of SEBI Circular No. CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13, 2012 by failing to redress one investor complaint within the prescribed time. I find from the plain reading of section 15 C which says that, if any listed company or any person who is registered as an intermediary, after having been called upon by the Board in writing, to redress the grievances of investor, fails to redress such grievances within the time specified by the Board, such company or intermediary shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less. I find from the record that the requirement under Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992 which states that “… after having been called upon by the Board in writing...” remains unfulfilled. In view of this, the allegation of violation of section 15C of SEBI Act by the Noticee is not tenable.
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/DSR/VS/899/2018. 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.