sebi:SD/AO/143/2009
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed on the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Shri Mustafa N Sayyed
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulation 4(1) and 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations and was held liable under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act. A monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 was imposed on Shri Mustafa N Sayyed.
Full text
Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and therefore, liable for monetary penalty under section 15HA of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
8. In the interest of justice, the Noticee was granted another opportunity of hearing on November 10, 2008, however, the Noticee again failed to attend the hearing.
are proved. In this regard, I would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in the matter of Classic Credit Limited Vs. SEBI (Appeal No. 68 Of 2003, Date of Decision December 8, 2006) regarding the significance of the filling the reply to the show cause notice, which stated as follows “the appellant did not file any reply to the second show cause Notice. This being so, it has to be presumed that the
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:SD/AO/143/2009. 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.