Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member The present appeal is preferred by five appellants against the impugned order dated July 31, 2013 passed by the respondent under Sections 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003. By the said order, the learned Whole Time Member (WTM) has restrained the appellants from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities in their proprietary accounts, directly or indirectly for a period of five years. A period of one year and seven months of restraint already undergone by the appellants is to be deducted from the period of five years. However, the restraint already imposed by ad-interim ex-parte order dated December 28, 2011 in respect of appellants stock broking business is to continue till the completion of the enquiry proceedings which are directed to be finalized expeditiously. It is also mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member 1. There are two Appellants in the present Appeal and have challenged the impugned order dated January 15, 2013 by which a penalty ofRs.25 lac has been imposed on Appellant No. 1 i.e., Rich Universe Network Limited (the Company) and Rs.15 lac on Appellant No. 2 who happens to be the Chairman and Managing Director of Appellant No. 1. 2. The Appellant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Kanpur. It is listed on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), Delhi Stock Exchange (DSE) and Uttar Pradesh Stock Exchange (UPSE). 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for sometime and we have perused the pleadings as well as written arguments submitted by both the parties. The main issue which requires consideration in the present appeal is that whether Appellants can defy, with impunity, the statutory summons issued by the Investigating Officer/Adjudicating Officer of the Respondent requiring them to produce records or appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning order dated February 28, 2013 passed by the respondent imposing a monetary penalty of Rs.4 lakh under section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. 2. The impugned order is passed pursuant to an enquiry held by the Adjudicating Officer under Rule 5 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 while investigating certain trading and dealing in the equity shares of Era Constructions (India) Ltd., now known as Era Infra Engineering Ltd. (ECIL). The total investigation period is of about eight months i.e. from March 17, 2004 to November 12, 2004. The appellant is however stated to have traded for a short period of about two months between May 19, 2004 to July 23, 2004 and on September 23, 2004. The appellants trading volume is stated to be 0.89 percent of the total traded volume. 3. The case of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. This appeal by consent of counsel for parties is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by adjudication order dated June 6, 2013 whereby total penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.50,000/- under Section 15A(c), Rs.50,000/- under section 15B and Rs.50,000/- under Section 15 HB of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992) has been imposed upon the appellant. 3. Mr. Shetty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant fairly conceded that there were deficiencies in the functioning of the appellant. However, he pleaded that since the lapses were procedural lapses, appellant ought to have been let off with warning to be more careful in future instead of imposing penalty. Alternatively, he submitted that the penalty imposed is excessive. 4. Deficiencies in the functioning of the appellant noticed in the impugned order as follows: (a) KYC Forms and Agreements, (b) Prevention of Money Laundering Compliances, (c) Compliance wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. This appeal is filed to challenge order of SEBI dated September 2, 2004, March 14, 2005 and April 20, 2005. Miscellaneous Application no. 92 of 2013 is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that challenging very same orders, appellant had filed Appeal no. 158 of 2012 before this Tribunal, with a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay in filing that Appeal no. 158 of 2012. By order dated August 22, 2012, this Tribunal declined to condone the delay and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application. Consequently, Appeal no. 158 of 2012 was also dismissed. 3. Challenging aforesaid order of this Tribunal, appellant filed Civil Appeal nos. 8472 8474 of 2012 before the Apex Court. Later on appellant sought to withdraw those Civil Appeals. Accordingly, by order dated January 14, 2013 aforesaid appeals were dismissed by Apex Court as withdrawn. Thus, order passed by this Tribunal on August...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) Counsel for parties state that issues raised in this appeal are covered by order of this Tribunal in Appeal no.114 of 2012 (HB Stockholdings Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India) with connected Appeals bearing Appeal nos. 160 and 165 of 2012 decided on August 27, 2013. In this view of the matter, impugned order dated July 23, 2013 is quashed and set aside and appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. In view of disposal of the Appeal, Miscellaneous Application no.82 of 2013 becomes infrucutous and is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh (for self and A. S. Lamba) The present appeal raises an important issue as to whether Global Depositories Receipts, i.e. GDRs, created and issued by foreign banks, namely, Deutsche Bank and Bank of New York, and listed on foreign stock exchanges, namely, Luxemburg Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange, albeit at the instance of Issuer Companies located in India, by a Lead Manager registered in the UK and governed by regulations framed and enforced by a foreign regulator, are amenable to the jurisdiction of an Indian regulator namely, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), in case any allegations of irregularity/illegality are leveled against the Lead Manager registered in the UK. 2. The appeal is preferred by two Appellants against the impugned order dated June 20, 2013 passed by the Respondent. Appellant no. 1, namely, Pan Asia Advisors Limited is a company registered under the laws of the UK having its registered office at 42, Mincing Lane, London. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer (Oral) 1. Appellant a non executive director of Vippy Industries Limited (for short the company) has filed this appeal to challenge order passed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short SEBI) dated 4th June 2013 (for short impugned order) wherein it is held that the company has not complied with requirement of minimum public shareholding and therefore, directors of non-compliant company have been restrained from holding any new position as a director in any listed company, till such time the company complies with the requirement of minimum public shareholding. 2. Appellant has raised several grounds to challenge the impugned order. Since impugned order requires the company/directors to file reply within the date specified therein and in fact reply has been filed by the company, counsel for SEBI on instruction states that final order after considering the reply filed by company/grounds raised in this appeal and after hearing both appellant an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Jog Singh, Member The present appeal arises out of order dated September 28, 2012 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of ` 5,00,000/- for violating Clauses A(2) and A(5) of Schedule II prescribed under Regulation 7 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Broker and Sub-broker) Regulations, 1992 (Stockbroker Regulations for short) read with Circular dated August 27, 2003 issued by the Respondent. 2. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI for short) conducted an investigation into the affairs of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (BOR) during the period June 2007 to December 2009. The investigation revealed that shareholding of the promoters of BOR with their PACs had increased from 46.80% in June 2007 to 63.15% in December 2009. Promoters alongwith their PACs increased their shareholdings by way of acquiring shares from the security market. It was also observed that certain brokers, including R. R. Chokhani Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant for short), traded f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer 1. By this Misc. Application No. 84 of 2013, applicant seeks to intervene in Appeal No.224 of 2012 filed by Reliance Industries Ltd. against communication of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) dated 2/11/2012. By that communication dated 2/11/2012, SEBI has rejected application of the appellant seeking copies of certain documents required for the matter under consideration. 2. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the appellantcompany and its subsidiaries are involved in huge insider trading scam, and the applicant would like to give certain information with regard to insider trading scam. 3. In this case, we are concerned with the correctness of the impugned order dated 2/11/2012. If the applicant makes out a case for interference, appeal would be allowed, failing which appeal would be dismissed. Applicant, who is unconnected with the matter, cannot be permitted to intervene in the appeal and make submissions one way or the other. If at a...
Tag this Judgment!