sebi:PB/AO-137/2010
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
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 11C
- s. 12
Holding
The Noticee violated sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act by failing to furnish information sought by summonses dated June 29, 2007 and August 01, 2007, and is liable for monetary penalty under section 15A(a). A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 was imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 18 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’) and consequently, liable for monetary penalty under section 15A (a) of the SEBI Act.
Page 3 of 18 7. In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry in terms of rule 4(3) of the Rules, the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing by the erstwhile Adjudicating Officer on January 19, 2009, vide notice dated December 31, 2008 sent through ASE to the Noticee. The said hearing notice was received and acknowledged by the Noticee as per the communication of ASE dated January 21, 2009. The Noticee vide his letter dated January 17, 2009 expressed his willingness to file consent application. The Noticee neither appeared for the hearing nor sought for adjournment. In the meantime, Noticee filed consent application no. 1317 of 2009 on May 15, 2009. However, the consent application was rejected by the High Powered Advisory Committee on April 01, 2010.
Page 4 of 18 • Non-furnishing of information/documents/records could have hardly affected the investigation as the same were based on documents collected from third parties or during the course of investigation. SEBI has ample power to collect such information/ documents/records from person/agency/intermediary to proceed its investigation and it appears that IA has accordingly proceeded thereto. Therefore, the investigation has not been hampered or affected in any manner on account of non- furnishing of documents. • Summons dated January 31, 2008 were issued afresh without taking cognizance of reply dated December 28, 2007 to the summons dated December 19, 2007. During the intervening period, all efforts were made to collect information /documents/records to meet the compliance of summons as expeditiously as possible. But all efforts went in vain to the extent that could not defend the case properly and effectively by adducing new evidence against the allegation leveled against in the SCN. Therefore, limitation to source and collect information/documents/records more than 5 years old, under no circumstances can be viewed as non- compliance of summons. • Vide letter dated July 07, 2007, I addressed the Chairman of the Board. Till now, I have not received any response to the issues raised therein from the Board or Chairman. • Assuming without admitting that no summons was issued to me on October 07, 2004, but it is admitted fact on record that summons was issued to M/s Rajesh N
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:PB/AO-137/2010. 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.