sebi:OIAE/EAD-3/AO/DRK-ASR/714/39-2015
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 under Section 15C
Provisions invoked
- s. 24
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15C
Parties
- Varun Shipping Company Limited
Holding
The Noticee violated Section 15C of the SEBI Act by failing to redress 34 investor grievances within the time specified by the Board, and a penalty of Rs 5,00,000 was imposed under Section 15C.
Full text
Page 2 of 8 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING: 3. A Show Cause Notice No. A&E/EAD-3/DRK-BM/18784/2013 dated July 30, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’) was served on the Noticee on August 06, 2013 through Hand Delivery Acknowledgment Due (hereinafter referred to as “HDAD”) under Rule 4 (1) of the Adjudication Rules, to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against the Noticee and why penalty, if any, should not be imposed on the noticee under Section 15C of the SEBI Act, for the alleged violation of non redressal of 34 investor grievances. The allegations against the Noticee as levelled in the SCN, are as under; a. Vide letter dated January 22, 2013 issued to the Noticee, SEBI had observed that 2 (two) investor grievances were pending against the Noticee in SCORES. It was also mentioned in the said letter that if the Noticee fails to redress the complaints, SEBI may take action against the Noticee under Section 15C and Section 24 of the SEBI Act. b. SEBI vide letter dated February 15, 2013 reminded the Noticee to redress the 5 (five) investor grievances pending on that date against the Noticee and submit the Action Taken Report (hereinafter referred to as ”ATR”) through SCORES, at the earliest, failing which SEBI may initiate regulatory action against the Noticee which includes debarring from Securities Market and/or imposing penalty. c. Thereafter, SEBI sent one more letter dated March 08, 2013 to the Noticee stating that if Noticee fails to red
Page 3 of 8 e. In view of the above, it was alleged that the Noticee had failed to resolve 34 investor grievances within the time specified by the Board, which is in violation of Section 15C of the SEBI Act. The provisions of Section 15C of the SEBI Act are produced hereunder;
Page 4 of 8 e. With respect to the investor complaint of Lal, Noticee informed that there is no such investor in records of the company. The Company has already responded to Lal and it has not received any reply from him. f. With respect to the investor complaint of Pankaj for non-receipt of Share certificates after transfer, Noticee submitted that Pankaj purchased shares in October 1996 but the seller Shri Kiritkumar C. Shah (hereinafter referred to as "Kiritkumar") had informed the "Stop Transfer" after the sale transaction and lodged the FIR for loss of Share certificates in March 2005. Since the original seller, i.e. Kiritkumar had informed the "Stop Transfer" the transfer of shares could not be affected unless NOC is received from Kiritkumar. This was communicated to Pankaj by the Noticee and he is following the NOC from Kiritkumar.
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:OIAE/EAD-3/AO/DRK-ASR/714/39-2015. 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.