Investment advisory violations sustained, with remand limited to quantum determination and interim security ordered for admitted receipts.

The Tribunal sustained the findings of violations against an unregistered investment advisory entity and connected persons, and confined the remand to determination of the actual amount received towards investment advisory services because the appellants had not produced documents establishing the source and extent of receipts. It also treated the admitted receipt of about Rs. 60 lakh as a fair basis for interim protection and directed that sum to be placed in a fixed deposit with lien in favour of SEBI pending reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the violations and directions in the impugned order should be interfered with, and whether the matter should be remitted only for determination of the actual amount received towards investment advisory services. (ii) Whether the admitted amount received towards investment advisory services should be secured pending reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the violations and directions in the impugned order should be interfered with, and whether the matter should be remitted only for determination of the actual amount received towards investment advisory services.

Analysis: The appeals arose from an order against an unregistered investment advisory entity and connected persons. The Tribunal accepted the request for a similar course as adopted in an earlier matter, while noting that the appellants had not produced documents to establish the source and extent of receipts. The Tribunal therefore retained the findings on violations and confined the remand to the factual question of the actual amount received towards investment advisory services.

Conclusion: The violations and directions were affirmed, and the matter was remitted only for determination of the actual amount received.

Issue (ii): Whether the admitted amount received towards investment advisory services should be secured pending reconsideration.

Analysis: The admitted receipt of about Rs. 60 lakh was treated as a fair basis for interim protection pending the WTM's reconsideration.

Conclusion: The appellants were directed to place Rs. 60 lakh in a fixed deposit with lien in favour of SEBI within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by sustaining the substantive findings, remitting only the limited quantum issue for fresh determination, and requiring interim security for the admitted amount.

---