sebi:RA/DPS/230/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed on the Noticee ex-parte for violation of Section 15C
Provisions invoked
- s. 15J
- s. 15
- s. 15A
- s. 15F
- s. 15C
Parties
- M/s Finalysis Credit & Guarantee Co. Ltd.
Holding
The Noticee failed to redress thirteen investor grievances pending in SCORES since February-May 2013 in violation of Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992 and is liable to a monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of M/s Finalysis Credit & Guarantee Co. Ltd. Page 2 of 17 Clause 13: “Failure by listed companies and SEBI registered intermediaries to file ATR under SCORES within thirty days of date of receipt of the grievance shall not only be treated as failure to furnish information to SEBI but shall also be deemed to constitute non-redressal of investor grievance.”
Adjudication Order in respect of M/s Finalysis Credit & Guarantee Co. Ltd. Page 3 of 17 4. A Show Cause Notice no. SEBI/HO/EAD/EAO/OW/P/2016/3092/1 dated February 04, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'SCN') was served on the noticee, requiring the notice to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against him and why penalty, if any, should not be imposed on the noticee under Section 15C of the SEBI Act for the violations alleged to have been committed by the Noticee. SCN issued to the Noticee at its registered address i.e. Finalysis Credit & Guarantee Co. Ltd., Unit No. 17, Damji Complex, LBS Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai 400050, as available from website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) under head of Company Master Data, returned undelivered by the Postal Department with remark, “Not Known”.
Adjudication Order in respect of M/s Finalysis Credit & Guarantee Co. Ltd. Page 4 of 17 6. During the period of instant proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated November 26, 2015 in the case of SEBI vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. held that Adjudicating Officer has no discretion in deciding quantum of penalty under Chapter VI A (except in u/s 15F(a) and 15HB of the SEBI Act). The issue involved in Roofit case was differently interpreted in case of Sidharth Chaturvedi (decided on March 14, 2016) and accordingly, the legal issue / matter was pending for Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Meantime, as per “The Finance Act 2017” (Notified for Part VIII of Chapters VI came into effect from April 26, 2017) following has been inter - alia clarified in respect of adjudication under SEBI Act-
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:RA/DPS/230/2017. 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.