sebi:SD/AO/23/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed on the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 11C(2)
Parties
- M/s. Right Finstock Private Limited
Holding
M/s. Right Finstock Private Limited failed to provide necessary information to the Investigating Authority in response to summons dated July 18, 2005 and October 18, 2005 in violation of Section 11C(2) and 11C(3), and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 15A(a) was imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 7 during the period January 2004 to December 2004 and to provide the name and address of the counterparties, details of the payments etc, copy of demat statement for the scrip KCBFL highlighting the deliveries received/made, copy of bank account statement for the same period highlighting the payments made and received, the details of number of shares held by the Noticee of KCBFL as on March 31, 2004, June 30, 2004, September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004, which are received by the Noticee. It is alleged that the Noticee failed to comply with the said summons/Notices and failed to submit the information/documents to the Investigating Authority.
Page 3 of 7 Hareshbhai Shah, Hemantbhai Rasiklal Shah, Mrs. Dakshaben Bipinbhai Pandya and Ankur Desai, out of whom Ankur Desai was very active Director and the rest were namesake Directors and that at present, Ankur Desai is absconding and his whereabouts are not known to remaining four Directors. The authorised representative had also stated that he is a small supplier in trading and hardly earns around 20,000/- per month and that he is only breadwinner of his family comprising of five members and his father Mr. Vishnubhai Sunderlal Parikh is the Director of the Noticee aging 75 years and staying with him and that the remaining Directors are also not in sound financial position. Thus he pleaded that the matter be viewed sympathetically on the above grounds.
Page 4 of 7 10. The Noticee was required to furnish the said details by July 25, 2005 and October 24, 2005 for summons dated July 18, 2005 and October 18, 2005 respectively. The Noticee was also informed that his personal appearance was not required at that stage of inquiry and providing information would be considered as compliance of summons. It is noted that both the summons are received by the Noticee as the acknowledgments of the same are available on record and hence there is sufficient proof of delivery of summons. The summons/letters were sent by Registered A.D.
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/23/2010. 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.