Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + AT SEBI - 2020 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (1) TMI 680 - AT - SEBI


Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty by the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI against the appellants for operating a Collective Investment Scheme without registration.
2. Challenge to the penalty order before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
3. Consideration of legality of fund mobilization and penalty imposition under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
4. Examination of factors under Section 15J of the SEBI Act in penalty calculation.

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty by the Adjudicating Officer

The Adjudicating Officer of SEBI imposed a penalty of ?24,23,16,56,765 on the appellants for operating a Collective Investment Scheme without registration. The scheme involved directors of a company mobilizing funds from the public without SEBI registration, leading to the penalty imposition based on violations of SEBI laws.

Issue 2: Challenge to Penalty Order before the Securities Appellate Tribunal

After the Adjudicating Officer's penalty order, the appellants filed appeals before the Securities Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the initial orders by SEBI, directing a reevaluation of the penalties in accordance with the law and computing any profits made from the scheme.

Issue 3: Legality of Fund Mobilization and Penalty Imposition

The Tribunal found that the funds mobilized by the appellants under the Collective Investment Scheme were illegal profits, justifying the penalty under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Officer's decision that the total amount collected was an unlawful gain, emphasizing the illegality of the scheme.

Issue 4: Examination of Factors under Section 15J in Penalty Calculation

The Tribunal affirmed that the factors under Section 15J of the SEBI Act were duly considered by the Adjudicating Officer. It was noted that the profits made by the appellants were at the expense of investors, justifying the penalty imposition. Specific findings indicated that the mobilized funds were not refunded to investors during the specified period, further supporting the penalty decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no manifest error in the penalty imposition under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act. The appellants' arguments regarding the legality of the scheme and the penalty quantification were rejected, emphasizing the unlawful nature of the fund mobilization and the considerations made in the penalty calculation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates