sebi:NRO/BFCSL/DRK/ASG/EAD3-286/52-2011
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 violations of SEBI (RTI & STA) Regulations, 1993 and SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 12
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 19E
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 55
Parties
- Beetal Financial and Computer Services (P) Ltd.
Holding
The noticee was found to have failed to comply with Regulation 55 of SEBI D&P Regulations (daily reconciliation of demat records), Clause 2 of the Code of Conduct under Schedule III of RTI & STA Regulations (maintenance of hard copies of acknowledgment letters with proof of dispatch), and SEBI circulars regarding acknowledgment letters and investor complaint redressal. A consolidated penalty of Rs. 30,000 was imposed (Rs. 20,000 under Section 15HB of SEBI Act and Rs. 10,000 under Section 19E of Depositories Act).
Full text
Page 2 of 16 19E of Depositories Act, the violations of provisions of the SEBI (Registrars to an Issue and Share Transfer Agents) Regulations, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI & STA Regulations’) and the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D& P Regulations’) alleged to have been committed by the noticee.
Page 3 of 16 4.4 The SCN had further alleged that though the noticee had shown a sample copy of the acknowledgement letter which it was supposed to send to applicants within 07 days of the demat/ remat request the noticee was neither maintaining any copy of the acknowledgment letters nor was there any proof of dispatch on record. In the absence of any copy of such acknowledgment letter, it is difficult to ascertain whether the same was being actually sent to all applicants within the stipulated time. 4.5 The noticee had failed in processing share transfer requests within the stipulated time of 30 days in certain instances. Functioning as Registrar to an Issue (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI’): 4.6 It was alleged in the SCN that multiple IPO applications in the issue of Evinix Accessories Ltd. (EAL) had the same name and PAN / Address, and their respective applications had still not been rejected by the noticee. Moreover, in the issue of Oriental Trimex Ltd. (OTL), a number of cases were observed where 2 or more applicants had the same PAN number however these applications had not been rejected as multiple applications. Maintenance of books of accounts 4.7 It was alleged in the SCN that though the noticee had furnished a networth certificate to SEBI for Financial Year 2006-07, it was found to be not a certified true copy. Further, for the Financial Year 2007- 08, net worth certificate had not been submitted to SEBI at all. Redressal of investor grievances: 4.8 The SCN had obs
Page 4 of 16 letter) in accordance with the practice being followed by the noticee had not been removed. This was observed in cases of Kallashben R Shah, Sanjay Bagaria and Y S Negi, even though the duplicate shares had been issued, the tag had not been removed.
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:NRO/BFCSL/DRK/ASG/EAD3-286/52-2011. 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.