9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate Per : Jog Singh (Oral) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated March 3, 2014 imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lac for violation of the provisions of Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Rs. 1 lac under Section 15HB of the Said Act. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary, Shri Kumar Desai with Mr. Tomu Francis, learned counsel for the respondent has argued the matter at length and defended the impugned order by arguing that expeditious disposal of investors grievances is an important facet of the SEBI's over all task of regulating the capital market. Shri Desai submits that an effective and modern investors' redressal grievances system has been conceived by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint was kept unattended despite SEBI's repeated request and advices by letters dated October 11, 2011, November 22, 2011, March 5, 2012, May 9, 2012, May 24, 2013 and April 30, 2012 and nothing was done by the appellant to redress the complaint in question. In the meanwhile, another complaint dated July 3, 2013 was filed by Mr. K. L. Chawla, a shareholder of the appellant company, for non-receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the respondent imposing a penalty of Rs. 3 lac that the appellant has resolved investors' complaints in question on April 16, 2014. 5. In view of this factual position, we do not find any legal infirmity in passing the impugned order by the respondent. It is noted that due procedure established by law has been followed by the learned adjudicating officer in conducting the inquiry again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les or regulations made or directions issued by the SEBI shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs. 1 crore where no separate penalty is prescribed by the law. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in the matter of imposition of penalty even on the ground of proportionality. In view of the abovesaid discussion of law and fact, the appeal being bereft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
