TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground to set aside penalty imposed - Penalty cannot be said as unreasonable and harsh as same is imposed after considering all mitigating factors - Appeal dismissed - Decided in favour of Respondent. - Appeal No. 255 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - J.P. Devadhar and Jog Singh, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Vikas Mishra, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Sukhramani, Advocate Per: Justice J.P. Devadhar 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 27.2.2015. By that order, the Adjudicating Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI for short) has imposed a penalty of ₹ 3 lac on the appellant under section 15C of the Securities and Exchange Board o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenging the aforesaid order present appeal is filed. 4. Counsel for the appellant while admitting that there is failure to comply with the SEBI directions within the stipulated time, submitted before us that at the material time appellant was a dormant company for more than seven years and the company could not comply with the requirements of law firstly on account of its poor financial position and secondly it was virtually impossible for the appellant to hire a Company Secretary in a remote village of U.P. where the appellant company is situated. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that several litigation initiated against the company also contributed for the delay in complying with SEBI direction. Counsel for appellant further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty for failure to redress the investor grievance within the time stipulated by SEBI is not less than one lac of rupees and it may extend to one lac rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of one crore rupees. In the present case penalty at the rate of Rs. one lac per day from the date of SEBI circular dated June 3, 2011 till compliance in February, 2015 would be more than a crore of rupees. However, the Adjudicating Officer after considering all mitigating factors has imposed a penalty of ₹ 3 lac which cannot be said to be unreasonable or harsh. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
