9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l ) This appeal is directed against the order dated April 27, 2022 passed by the AO Adjudicating Officer, SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 for failure to comply with the provisions of Regulations 15(1)(i) of Debenture Trustees Regulations SEBI (Debenture Trustees) Regulations, 1993 (prior to the amendment to the Regulations in 2017) and Regulation 16 read with Clause 19 of Code of Conduct prescribed under Regulations. 2. We have heard Shri B. Gopalkrishnan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Suraj Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the respondent. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, based on the information received from Ministry of Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of the appeal Shri B. Gopalkrishnan, at the outset, submitted that the IL&FS was taken over by the appellant, Vistra ITCL (India) Ltd., in the year 2016 and the appellant had no full knowledge of the activities of its predecessor. He did not dispute the fact that the appellant had received the communication from Karvy on April 1, 2014 (page 299 of the appeal paper book), but not informed the SEBI that there were more than 49 debenture holders. In substance, he submitted that though there has been failure on the part of the appellant in intimating the SEBI, the same was due to a bonafide inadvertence and prayed only for reduction in penalty. 6. Shri Suraj Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that there are two c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has fairly conceded that even on receipt of the list of investors from Karvy on April 1, 2014, appellant did not report the same to SEBI. Thus the first charge has been admitted. 10. So far as the second charge of suppression of the BENPOS report, we may record that for the first time SEBI called upon the appellant to produce the same by their e-mail dated July 17, 2020. It is not in dispute that on August 4, 2020 the report has been submitted by the appellant. The grievance sought to be made out by the SEBI is that initially the appellant furnished the wrong BENPOS report BENPOS report as on 31.03.2015 and after two reminders, submitted the correct BENPOS report BENPOS report as on 31.03.2014. This according to the SEBI is suppress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
