sebi:WTM/AB/EFD-1/DRA-1V/19/2019-20
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee nos. 1 to 7 found to have violated Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 3 of the IA Regulations; directions issued including refund of fees, cease and desist, and restraint from securities market for three years; SCN against Noticee nos. 8 and 9 disposed of as charge not established
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 12(1)
- s. 12
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 5
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 3(1)
Parties
- Mr. Mohan Lal Agrawal (Noticee no. 1)
- Mr. Murali Lal Agrawal (Noticee no. 2)
- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jena (Noticee no. 3)
- Mr. Samirkanta Panda (Noticee no. 4)
- Mr. Niranjan Rana (Noticee no. 5)
- Mr. Balaram Pradhan (Noticee no. 6)
- Mr. Trinath Rana (Noticee no. 7)
- Mr. Ashwin Bora (Noticee no. 8)
- Mr. Lalit Behera (Noticee no. 9)
Holding
Noticee nos. 1 to 7, through their respective proprietorship concerns, acted as unregistered investment advisers in violation of Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 3 of the IA Regulations. The charge of violation was not established against Noticee nos. 8 and 9, who merely assisted Noticee no. 2.
Full text
Order in respect of Mohan Lal Agrawal and other associated entities Page 2 of 23 violation of SEBI (Investment Advisor) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “IA Regulations”) read with Section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”). SEBI also found out that a few more proprietorship concerns related to Stock Fayda were also providing investment advisory services in violation of IA Regulations read with Section 12 of SEBI Act.
Order in respect of Mohan Lal Agrawal and other associated entities Page 3 of 23 3. The SCN was served on Noticees No. 1, 2 & 9 through Speed Post. The SCN issued to Noticee nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 returned undelivered. Therefore, the SCNs were affixed on the last known address of the Noticees. An opportunity of personal hearing was granted to all the Noticees on March 19, 2019. On the said date, Mr. Mohan Lal Agrawal (Noticee no. 1) appeared before me on behalf of himself and Noticee No. 2 and 8. The hearing notice communicating the date of hearing could not be served on Noticee nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the said Noticees on April 22, 2019. As the hearing notice returned undelivered, the same was affixed on the last known address of Noticee nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7. Noticee nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 did not appear for personal hearing before me nor have submitted any reply in the matter. In view of this, I proceed to decide the matter ex-parte against Noticee nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Order in respect of Mohan Lal Agrawal and other associated entities Page 4 of 23 … … … (l) “investment advice” means advice relating to investing in, purchasing, selling or otherwise dealing in securities or investment products, and advice or investment portfolio containing securities or investment products, whether written, oral or through any other means of communication for the benefit of the client and shall include financial planning: Provided that investment advice given through newspaper, magazines, any electronic or broadcasting or telecommunications medium, which is widely available to the public shall not be considered as investment advice for the purpose of these regulations;
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:WTM/AB/EFD-1/DRA-1V/19/2019-20. 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.