sebi:Order/MS/SS/2018-19/1793
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Ex parte penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed under Section 15HB of SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 12
- s. 398
- s. 15C
Parties
- Sai Televisions Ltd
Holding
Sai Televisions Ltd, a listed company, failed to obtain SCORES authentication in violation of SEBI circulars dated June 03, 2011 and August 13, 2012 and is liable under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act; a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 is imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 4. A Show Cause Notice dated September 01, 2017 (herein after, SCN) was issued to the noticee under Rule 4(1) of the Rules, calling it to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against it in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules, read with section 15-I of SEBI Act and penalty be not imposed on it under sections 15 HB of SEBI Act for its alleged non- compliance to circulars dated June 3, 2011, August 13, 2012, April 17, 2013 and December 18, 2014. The SCN was dispatched through Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due (hereinafter, SPAD) to the address of the noticee as mentioned in the portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (hereinafter, MCA), which returned undelivered with the endorsement “Addressee cannot be located”. The said SCN was also attempted to be served by affixture on September 16, 2017, but the company was not found at the said address and the denizen of the premise did not permit affixture.
Page 3 of 6 7. As noted above, the notices of personal hearing dated November 02, 2018 and November 30, 2018, both enclosing copy of the SCN and despatched to the registered office address of the noticee, as available in the portal of MCA, returned undelivered. In this regard, Section 12 r/w Section 398 of Companies Act, 2013 requires the noticee to receive and acknowledge all communications and notices addressed to its registered address, and also to make necessary filing with the Registrar of Companies / MCA portal, in case of change in this address. Accordingly, the consequences of non-compliance to these provisions, if any, shall vest solely on the noticee. I therefore, hold that the service of the aforesaid notice through SPAD, as aforesaid, as valid service under 7(b) of the cited Rules. I also note that serving of notice through affixture and newspaper publication in terms of Rules 7 (c) & (d), respectively, are more relevant to natural persons who are under no statutory obligation to intimate any authority about their address or its change thereof. Be that as it may, I note that noticee could not be found even while attempting to serve the cited notice through hand delivery. Accordingly, I proceed in this matter on the basis of the material available on records, and the issues that arise for consideration in the present case are:
Page 4 of 6 companies have to obtain user ID and login password from SEBI by providing specified information to the latter (hereinafter, SCORES authentication). The foregoing were spelt out in the SEBI Circular No. CIR/OIAE/2/2011 dated June 03, 2011 which also provided the format in its annexure, for listed companies to provide information to the former to obtain authentication.
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:Order/MS/SS/2018-19/1793. 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.