9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as SCRA ) - as contented the penalty of ₹ 2 crores should not have been imposed upon the Company but should have been imposed on the Key Managerial Personnel of the Company who took a conscious decision of not disclosing the event under Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement HELD THAT:- We find that parallel proceedings for the same offence, namely, violation of Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement was also initiated against Key Managerial Personnel which also culminated into an order dated 16th March, 2018 being passed by the Adjudicating Officer under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act as well as under Section 23A(a) and Section 23E of the SCRA for violation of Regulation 13(6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al would amount to enlarging the scope of the representation beyond the grievances set out in the memo of appeal. Thus, the allegations made in the additional affidavit could not be considered. In any case, we find that the additional affidavit on which reliance has been made was filed on 17th November, 2015 much after the disposal of the appellant s appeal on 10th October, 2017 and disposal of his modification application dated 12th October, 2017. Any additional affidavit filed after the disposal of the appeal cannot form part of the memo of appeal. - Misc. Application No.98 of 2018 And Appeal No.115 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2019 - Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer And Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member For The App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 4th June, 2015 wherein the Company NDTV was imposed a penalty of ₹ 2 crore. 2. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order filed Appeal no.343 of 2015 contending that the penalty of ₹ 2 crores should not have been imposed upon the Company but should have been imposed on the Key Managerial Personnel of the Company who took a conscious decision of not disclosing the event under Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement. 3. The appellant prayed that the order of the Adjudicating Officer dated 4th June, 2015 should be quashed and the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Officer to pass a fresh order on penalty on Key Managerial Personnel. The Tribunals while considering the matter dispose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant is that in para 1 of our order it is recorded that counsel for the appellant has agreed to make a fresh representation to SEBI when in fact the suggestion was made by counsel for SEBI and not by the counsel for the appellant. Since counsel for appellant has accepted the suggestion, we see no reason to modify our order. 4. Second grievance of the applicant is that the applicant must be permitted to make representation on all issues relating to the violation of securities laws by the respondent No.2 and not restricted to the violation set out in the appeal. 5. In our opinion, permitting the appellant to make representation on issues which are not subject matter of appeal would amount to enlargin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant in this regard was considered and appropriate orders of penalty was passed against the Company. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Before this Tribunal it was asserted that the imposition of ₹ 2 crores was only made against the Company whereas the penalty should have been imposed against the Key Managerial Personnel of the Company which has not been done. In our opinion, this contention is wholly misconceived. We find that parallel proceedings for the same offence, namely, violation of Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement was also initiated against Key Managerial Personnel which also culminated into an order dated 16th March, 2018 being passed by the Adjudicating Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which related to the order dated 4th June, 2015. The Tribunal rejected the modification application holding that permitting the appellant to make a representation on issues which are not the subject matter of appeal would amount to enlarging the scope of the representation beyond the grievances set out in the memo of appeal. Thus, the allegations made in the additional affidavit could not be considered. In any case, we find that the additional affidavit on which reliance has been made was filed on 17th November, 2015 much after the disposal of the appellant s appeal on 10th October, 2017 and disposal of his modification application dated 12th October, 2017. Any additional affidavit filed after the disposal of the appeal cannot form part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
