9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retary For The Respondent : Mr. Roopdaksha Basu, Advocate i/b The Law Point ORDER Per : J.P. Devadhar 1. Above Miscellaneous Application is filed by the appellant seeking restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on account of the fact that none appeared on behalf of the appellant on 26.11.2014, 01.12.2014 and 16.02.2015. Representative of the appellant submitted that he could not attend t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iolated section 15C of the SEBI Act. 4. Representative of the appellant submitted that the appellant has been a sick industrial undertaking and commercial operations of the appellant company had remained suspended until the financial year 2012-13 and therefore the appellant could not get the registration under SCORES within the time stipulated by SEBI. However, immediately on receiving notice fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vances are redressed expeditiously. In the circular dated 13.08.2012 it was specifically stated that if SCORES registration is not obtained by 14.09.2012 enforcement action would be taken. Inspite of the said direction, the appellant failed and neglected to get the SCORES Login ID and password within time stipulated in the Circular dated 13.08.2012. 7. Thereafter SEBI issued two advertisements da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld attend to the investor grievance much earlier. Therefore, it is apparent that time and again the appellant has failed to obtain the SCORES registration within the time stipulated by SEBI and thereby the appellant has failed to resolve the investor grievances within the time stipulated by SEBI. Fact that there was only one investor grievance and the fact that appellant took steps to resolve the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the penalty imposable would be Rs. 1 crore. However, after taking all mitigating factors into consideration the adjudicating officer has imposed nominal penalty of Rs. 1 lac on the appellant which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary or unreasonable. Thus, no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating officer, wherein imposing nominal penalty of Rs. 1 lac is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
