TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant to note that based on the aforesaid violations, the AO of SEBI by his order dated 06.08.2014 had inter alia imposed penalty of ₹ 2 crore on the directors of RDB. Challenging the said order passed by the AO, the directors of RDB had filed appeals before this Tribunal. In our order passed today in those appeals we have upheld the decision of the AO of SEBI that the directors or RDB are guilty of violating ICDR Regulations and PFUTP Regulations and accordingly upheld the penalty of ₹ 2 crore imposed on the appellants. However, going into the question as to whether the WTM of SEBI was justified in upholding the two additional charges would now be futile, because the appellants have already undergone the debarment imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the impugned order dated 19.12.2014 the WTM of SEBI in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11, 11A and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ( SEBI Act for short) has debarred the appellants from accessing the securities market and prohibited them from buying, selling and otherwise dealing in securities market directly or indirectly in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of four years. It is further stated in the impugned order that the period of prohibition already undergone by the appellants pursuant to the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 28.12.2011 shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of prohibition imposed under the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulations and PFUTP Regulations and accordingly upheld the penalty of ₹ 2 crore imposed on the appellants. 7. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our order in Appeal No. 404 of 2014, we uphold the order passed by the WTM of SEBI that the appellants are guilty of violating the ICDR Regulations and PFUTP Regulations. 8. As regards the two additional charges upheld against the appellants, which were dropped by the AO of SEBI, in our opinion, the WTM of SEBI without recording a finding as to how the order of AO is erroneous with reference to the two additional charges, could not and ought not to have upheld the two additional charges against the appellants. 9. However, going into the question as to whether the WTM of SEBI wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
