sebi:WTM/KMA/OIAE/341/12/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Proceedings initiated by show cause notices dated November 6, 2009 and November 10, 2009 disposed of without any directions
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 19
Parties
- Steelco Gujarat Limited
- Mr. Chandaria Vimal Ratilal
- Mr. Lodha Mahendra G
- Mr. Mehra Jatinder D.
- Mr. Sheth Shripal Chinubhai
- Mr. Chandaria Rashmikant Devchand
- Mr. Chandaria Ratilal Premchand
- Mr. Singh Mahendra Pratap
- Mr. Mohnot Narendra Mal Sardar Mal
- Mr. Mamak Raghbirsingh Sundersingh
- Mr. Mistry Hiren Jagdishbhai
Holding
The Whole Time Member disposed of the show cause proceedings initiated against Steelco Gujarat Limited, its directors and company secretary under Sections 11(4)(b) and 11B of the SEBI Act, without issuing any directions, as the Company had resolved all investor complaints forwarded by SEBI.
Full text
Page 2 of 4 Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as SEBI Act). The said letter which was sent to the Company by Registered Post was acknowledged by it. However, the Company had failed to file the status report with SEBI, as advised in the aforesaid letter. In view of the above, a reminder dated November 21, 2008 was sent to the Company advising it to resolve the complaints and submit the status report within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter. It was also mentioned in the said order that in case of failure, SEBI would initiate such actions as deemed appropriate. A similar letter was also sent to Mr. N. M. Mohnot, Deputy Managing Director of company. Thereafter, the Company, vide letter November 28, 2008 had informed SEBI that it had resolved all the complaints and that there was no pending complaint against it. As the said letter did not contain adequate information, SEBI, vide letter dated February 13, 2009 had advised the Company to submit the necessary enclosures with the Action Taken Report (hereinafter referred to as the ATR) within seven days. SEBI, in the said letter, had also provided the list of grievances which were not treated as closed/resolved due to the deficiencies in the ATR. The deficiencies observed by SEBI were also mentioned in the said letter. Subsequently, the Company had, vide letter dated February 20, 2009 reiterated its earlier submission, in response to SEBI letter dated February 13,
Page 3 of 4 Mohnot Narendra Mal Sardar Mal and Mr. Mamak Raghbirsingh Sundersingh and its company secretary, Mr. Mistry Hiren Jagdishbhai. In response to the said notice, the Company, vide letter dated December 4, 2009, while forwarding the ATR inter alia stated that it had replied to all the shareholders/investors. The Company had also sent ATR, duplicate issue register (dated March 11, and April 7, 2010) and the proof of dispatch (with registered post). Thereafter, vide letter dated April 8, 2010, the Company, forwarded the list of shareholder’s affidavit send as proof of dispatch, copy of duplicate share issue Register, list of complaints forwarded by SEBI. The Company had again filed ATR (as on April 29, 2010), vide letter dated April 29, 2010. The Company, in a separate letter dated April 29, 2010 requested SEBI that all the aforesaid replies made by it are to treated as a joint reply of Mr. Chandaria Rashmikant Devchand, Mr. Mistry Hiren Jagdishbhai, Mr. Singh Mahendra Pratap, Mr. Lodha Mahendra G and Mr. Mehra Jatinder D. Thereafter, SEBI, vide letter dated May 5, 2010 requested the Company to serve the show cause notices dated November 10, 2009 issued to Mr. Mamak Raghbirsingh Sundersingh, Mr. Sheth Shripal Chinubhai, Mr. Mohnot Narendra Mal Sardar Mal and Mr. Chandaria Vimal Ratilal. Thereafter an opportunity of hearing was granted by SEBI to the Company and its directors and Company Secretary on August 5, 2010. Thereafter, the Company, vide letter dated June 21, 201
Page 4 of 4 complaint against the Company and referred to the ATRs submitted to SEBI by them. I also note that SEBI had initiated adjudication proceedings under Sections 15C and Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act against the Company for its failure to redress the complaints. The penalty of `5,00,000/- imposed by the adjudicating officer was also paid by the Company. As the Company has now resolved all the complaints forwarded by SEBI, I do not consider that the present case is a fit one to issue any directions. Accordingly, I dispose of the proceedings initiated against the Company, its directors and the company secretary, as ordered here in below.
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/KMA/OIAE/341/12/2010. 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.