sebi:Order/AN/NS/2022-23/22684

SEBI · SEBI · 2014-12-18 · Amar Navlani, Adjudicating Officer

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 under Sections 15C and 15HA of the SEBI Act

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 12A
• s. 15H
• s. 15J
• s. 15C

Regulations

• Reg. 3
• Reg. 2(1)(c)
• Reg. 200
• Reg. 3(a)
• Reg. 15(1)
• Reg. 21(1)
• Reg. 201
• Reg. 15(9)
• Reg. 28(f)

Parties

• Capital Grow Financial Services (Proprietor Mr. Prashant Gole)

Holding

The Noticee was held liable for violating SEBI Circular CIR/OIAE/2014, Regulation 21(1) read with Regulation 28(f) of IA Regulations 2013, and Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) and (d), 4(1), 4(2)(k) and (s) of PFUTP Regulations 2003 read with section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of SEBI Act, 1992, attracting penalties of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15C and Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.

Full text

Adjudication Order in respect of Capital Grow Financial Services (Proprietor Mr. Prashant Gole) Page 2 of 16 corresponding provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI Act"), Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and SEBI Circular are tabulated below:

Adjudication Order in respect of Capital Grow Financial Services (Proprietor Mr. Prashant Gole) Page 3 of 16 to transfer of Dr. Anitha Anoop, the undersigned was appointed as the AO in the instant proceedings vide communique dated September 05, 2022.

Adjudication Order in respect of Capital Grow Financial Services (Proprietor Mr. Prashant Gole) Page 4 of 16 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...”Further, the same position is reiterated by the Hon’ble SAT in the matter of Dave Harihar Kirtibhai Vs SEBI (Appeal No. 181 of 214 dated December 19, 2014), wherein the Hon’ble SAT observed as under:“...further, it is being increasingly observed by the Tribunal that many persons/entities do not appear before SEBI (Respondent) to submit reply to SCN or, even worse, do not accept notices/letters of Respondent and when orders are passed ex-parte by Respondent, appear before Tribunal in appeal and claim non-receipt of notice and do not appear and/or submit reply to SCN but claim violation of principles of natural justice due to not being provided opportunity to reply to SCN or not provided personal hearing. This leads to unnecessary and avoidable loss of time and resources on part of all concerned and should be eschewed, to say the least. Hence, this case is being decided on basis of material before this Tribunal...”

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/AN/NS/2022-23/22684. 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.