TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to a communication gap between him and the broker the violation had occurred which resulted into a meager profit of ₹ 17,467/-. Taking into consideration these factors in our opinion a penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs instead of ₹ 12 lakhs as imposed by the Adjudicating Officer would be just and sufficient. Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is affirmed except the penalty which is reduced from ₹ 12 lakh to ₹ 2 lakh which shall be paid within four weeks from today by the appellant to respondent SEBI. - Appeal No. 404 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2019 - Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer And M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Naishadh P. Desai, Adv. For the Respondent : Kumar D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2012 1,000 7,11,000 1,000 7,12,747 26.06.2012 1,000 7,20,000 1,000 7,31,342 28.06.2012 1,000 7,20,000 1,000 7,26,000 29.06.2012 1,000 7,32,997 1,000 7,36,987 Total (June) 5,000 35,67,997 5,000 35,94,076 02.07.2012 1,000 7,45,000 1,000 7,55,020 03.07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um penalty of ₹ 1 Crore where no separate penalty is provided. He also took into consideration the provisions of Section 15J of the SEBI Act which provides for taking into consideration three factors while adjudging the quantum of penalty. (a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (b) the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors as a result of the default; (c) the repetitive nature of default 5. The Adjudicating Officer after adverting to these provisions underlined that the violation was repetitive in nature for two months. It was further observed that the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage to the noticee or loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
