9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Officer ('AO' for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI' for short) by order dated July 19, 2017 for violation of Section 11C(3) read with Section 11(2)(i) of SEBI Act, 1992 has imposed a penalty under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, 1992 against which two separate appeals have been filed and the same are being decided together. 2. SEBI while conducting investigation into the alleged irregularities in the trading in the scrip of Sungold Capital Limited and into the possible violation of the SEBI laws and regulations required the appellants to furnish certain information. Insofar as the appellant in Appeal No. 282 of 2017 is concerned i.e. the Company, a summons dated December 9, 2014 was issued asking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have violated the provisions of Section 11C (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakh on the appellant Company in Appeal No. 282 of 2017 and a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs each on the appellants in Appeal No. 308 of 2017 was imposed. 6. We have heard Shri J. J. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 282 of 2017, Shri Amit Kotia, Authorized Representative in Appeal No. 308 of 2017 and Shri Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant Company submitted that even though they had not furnished the information pursuant to the summons dated December 9, 2014 but the information sought as per e-mail dated January 14, 2015 was duly given. It was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which was precisely being done in the instant case. The alleged irregularities in the trading in the scrips of the appellant Company could not be investigated on account of non-furnishing of the information. Such non-furnishing of the information hampered the investigation and, therefore, penalty becomes leviable. 10. However, we find that it is not a case where it could be said that there was total non co-operation on the part of the appellant Company. Admittedly, most of the information was submitted though the information as per summons dated December 9, 2014 was furnished only at the stage of hearing in the adjudicating proceedings. Thus, even though information was provided by the appellant Company belatedly, we also find that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied the requisite information to the investigating authorities nor filed any reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO. Thus, the contention that they were not served with the summons cannot be believed. 14. It has also been stated that they had engaged the services of an Advocate to whom they had given the requisite information and who was instructed to file the reply. It was urged that the said Advocate failed to file the reply and subsequently the appellants found that their Advocate had died. It was, thus, contended that the appellants had no intention of not providing any information to the respondent and the non-furnishing of the information was on account of the death of their Advocate. 15. The contention of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
