9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that compared to other entities involved in the present case, penalty imposed against the appellant is excessive and exorbitant cannot be accepted. No merit in Argument of the appellant that the AO has failed to consider the mitigating factors set out in Section 15J of the SEBI Act. As against the penalty of ₹ 25 crore imposable under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, the AO after considering all mitigating factors has imposed penalty of ₹ 60 lac and as against penalty of ₹ 1 Crore imposable under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, AO after considering all mitigating factors has imposed penalty of ₹ 15 lac. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that the AO has fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ghosh, Advocates i/b The Law Point for the Respondent. J.P. Devadhar, 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer ( AO for short) of Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI for short) on 22nd July, 2014. By that order, penalty of ₹ 60 lac is imposed on the appellant under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ( SEBI Act for short) for violating the provisions contained in the SEBI Act and SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 ( PFUTP Regulations for short) and ₹ 15 lac under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act for violating the Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers specified under the SEBI ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing penalty on the appellant. (c) The annual turnover of the appellant for last several years has been around ₹ 5 lac per year and hence imposing penalty of ₹ 75 lac in the facts of present case is wholly unjustified. (d) In para 32 of the impugned order the AO has recorded a finding that the appellant's contribution towards LTP was not much. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded in the impugned order, the AO could not have held that the appellant has aided and abetted other entities in committing LTP variation in the scrip of Gangotri during the investigation period. Thus, the findings recorded in para 32 being mutually inconsistent, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (e) In any event, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulging in synchronized trades, circular trades and reversal trades constitutes serious violation of Brokers Regulations and for such violation, penalty imposable under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act is up to ₹ 1 crore. However, after considering all mitigating factors, the AO, as against the imposable penalty of ₹ 1 crore, has imposed penalty of ₹ 15 lac which cannot be said to be unreasonable or harsh. 8. Argument of the appellant that various entities involved in the present case have indulged in such violations repeatedly does not make any difference to the case of the appellant. As noted earlier, the appellant as a registered stock broker ought to have acted as a role model for others. In the present case, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not on the basis of annual turnover. Having committed serious violations under the PFUTP Regulations and Brokers Regulations, the appellant is not justified in contending that the penalty imposed is excessively harsh or exorbitant especially when penalty of ₹ 60 lac has been imposed as against the penalty of ₹ 25 crore imposable under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act and penalty of ₹ 15 lac has been imposed as against penalty of ₹ 1 crore imposable under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act. 11. Argument of the appellant that having recorded in para 32 of the impugned order that the contribution of the appellant towards LTP was not much, the AO ought not to have held that the appellant has aided and abetted in LTP variat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
