sebi:EAD-2/SS/VS/2-6/2018-19
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 of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- jointly and severally upon all Noticees under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act for non-compliance with SEBI's Order dated February 03, 2014.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Parties
- Green Ray International Limited
- Mr. Mir Shahiruddin
- Mr. Mir Tahiruddin
- Mr. Ayub Saha
- Mr. Khalik Saha
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 1 crore under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act upon Green Ray International Limited and its four directors/promoters for failing to comply with SEBI's directions dated February 03, 2014 to wind up collective investment schemes, refund investor money, and submit a winding up and repayment report (WRR).
Full text
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication Order in respect of Green Ray International Limited. Page 2 of 6
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication Order in respect of Green Ray International Limited. Page 3 of 6
______________________________________________________________________________________ Adjudication Order in respect of Green Ray International Limited. Page 4 of 6 only material relied upon in support of the allegations is the order dated February 03, 2014 and the information that the Noticees have been alleged to have failed to make the refund and file the WRR as directed. The Noticees have failed to file any response and have not cooperated at all as found hereinabove. I, therefore, deem that the allegations/charges have been admitted by the Noticees. 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...
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/SS/VS/2-6/2018-19. 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.