9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 1, 2014 along with list of investors. Secondly, that appellant had sought to suppress the receipt of the BENPOS report from Karvy and did not furnish the same till two reminders were sent and finally forwarded the report on August 4, 2020. HELD THAT:- Undisputed facts of the case are Vaishnodevi Dairy Products Ltd. had proposed to issue Non-convertible Debentures and appointed appelant/IL FS as the debenture trustee. The said Company was taken over the appellant. Karvy was the sole subscriber of the debentures and it had further sold the debentures to 185 investors. As per the extant Regulations there could not have been more than 49 investors in debentures. On April 1, 2014, Karvy had sent an e-mail to IL FS containing a list of 154 inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Mody, Mr. Yash Sutaria and Mr. Tushar Bansode, Advocates i/b. M/s. K. Ashar Co. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer ( Oral ) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh under the Debenture Trustees Regulations. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. Arguing in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paper book. It is clearly mentioned on the top that it was the BENPOS report as on March 24, 2014. As noted hereinabove, the learned Advocate for the appellant 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 rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
