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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Penalty Reduced for Young Appellant in SEBI Summons Non-Compliance Case Under Section 15A(a) of SEBI Act</h1> <h3>Mr. Heet Manish Bapna Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai</h3> SAT considered an appeal by a 22-year-old appellant from Surat challenging a monetary penalty imposed by SEBI for failure to comply with summons under ... Imposition of a penalty - failure to comply with the summons - violation under Section 15(A)(a) - seeking to reduce penalty - HELD THAT:- It appears that the appellant is an young man aged 22 from Surat, Gujarat. There is no history of any previous violations. One of the reasons stated for delay in filing this appeal is want of finance. As appellant is a young boy in the beginning of his career in our view ends of justice would be met by reducing penalty. Appeal allowed in part by reducing penalty, which has already been recovered by SEBI. An appeal was filed against a SEBI Adjudicating Officer's order dated 26.03.2024 imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act, 1992 for failure to comply with SEBI summons dated May 23, 2022 and June 13, 2022. The appellant argued he is 22 years old, recently moved from Surat to Mumbai for studies, has no independent source of income or financial support, and was 'not conversant with the Securities Law.' It was also noted that there was 'no history of any previous violations' and that financial constraints contributed to delay in filing the appeal. SEBI opposed the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering rival submissions and the record, held that 'keeping in view the fact that the appellant is a young boy in the beginning of his career... ends of justice would be met by reducing penalty to Rs. 2.5 lakhs.' As SEBI had already recovered Rs. 2.5 lakhs, the appeal was allowed in part and the penalty reduced accordingly. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.