TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds penalties for non-compliance with SEBI summons, stresses importance of regulatory procedures</h1> <h3>DKG Buildcon Private Ltd. Versus The Adjudicating & Enquiry Officer, S.E.B.I. And R.C. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India</h3> DKG Buildcon Private Ltd. Versus The Adjudicating & Enquiry Officer, S.E.B.I. And R.C. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India - ... Issues Involved:1. Non-compliance with SEBI summons.2. Imposition of penalties under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.3. Applicability of amended provisions of Section 15A(a).4. Consideration of Section 15J factors in determining penalties.5. Authority of SEBI's Investigating Officer under Section 11C(3).6. Allegations of aiding and abetting market manipulation.Detailed Analysis:1. Non-Compliance with SEBI Summons:The appellants failed to respond to multiple summons issued by SEBI's Investigating Authority, requiring them to produce documents and furnish information during an investigation into suspicious trading activities and share price manipulation of STIL. The appellants' non-compliance was seen as an attempt to obstruct the investigation.2. Imposition of Penalties under Section 15A(a):The Adjudicating Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of rupees one crore on each appellant for failing to comply with SEBI's summons. The penalty was based on the amended Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, which provides for a penalty of rupees one lakh for each day of failure or rupees one crore, whichever is less.3. Applicability of Amended Provisions of Section 15A(a):The appellants argued that the maximum penalty should be limited to Rs. 1,50,000 as per the unamended Section 15A(a). However, the court held that the non-compliance with the fresh summons issued in April 2003 constituted a fresh offence, thus attracting the amended provisions of Section 15A(a).4. Consideration of Section 15J Factors in Determining Penalties:The appellants contended that the AO failed to consider the factors under Section 15J while determining the quantum of penalty. The court noted that the severity of the offences and the non-cooperative attitude of the appellants justified the penalty. The Explanation to Section 15J creates a presumption that the AO considered the relevant factors.5. Authority of SEBI's Investigating Officer under Section 11C(3):The court upheld the authority of SEBI's Investigating Officer to summon and require the production of documents and information under Section 11C(3). The appellants, being associated with the securities market, were obligated to comply with the summons.6. Allegations of Aiding and Abetting Market Manipulation:SEBI's investigation concluded that the appellants facilitated Ketan Parekh and his companies in manipulating the securities market, thereby violating Regulation 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. The appellants did not challenge this finding, which had attained finality.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeals, affirming the penalties imposed by the AO and upheld by the SAT. The penalties were deemed proportionate and justified given the appellants' role in obstructing the investigation and their involvement in market manipulation. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with SEBI's investigative processes to maintain the integrity of the securities market.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
