sebi:PB/AO-83/2010
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 on Noticee for failure to comply with summonses under sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 11C
- s. 12
Holding
The Noticee failed to comply with the provisions of sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act by not furnishing information sought through three summonses issued by the Investigating Authority, and is liable for a monetary penalty under section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 15 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’) and consequently, liable for monetary penalty under section 15A (a) of the SEBI Act.
Page 3 of 15 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. The Noticee was given another opportunity of personal hearing by the existing Adjudicating Officer on August 04, 2009, vide letter dated June 25, 2009 sent through Western Regional Office, SEBI (hereinafter referred to as “WRO’). In the meantime, Noticee filed consent application no. 1484 of 2009 on July 27, 2009. The Noticee vide letter dated August 03, 2009 informed the existing Adjudicating Officer that he has filed the consent application. However, the consent application was rejected by the High Powered Advisory Committee on February 04, 2010.
Page 4 of 15 • To appreciate the limitations and difficulty of an individual investor to preserve and produce the documents and records for a period exceeding 5 years though no period has been prescribed in SEBI Act, 1992. • Intention to furnish the information/documents/records and to extend co- operation was expressed in the matter but the reasonable time required to collect and furnish the information/documents/records as has been requested was not afforded. • 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 collec
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-83/2010. 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.