https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171234 Carrying on sub-broker activity before obtaining registration, after the relevant 1992 Rules had been rescinded, was treated as a regulatory breach attracting penalty under the SEBI Act, and the penalty under Section 15HB was upheld. Failure to furnish documents called for in summonses also sustained liability under Section 15A(a), because partial compliance did not excuse non-production of specific required records. The absence of unlawful gain or investor loss was relevant to the quantum of penalty under Section 15J, not to liability itself. However, as one alleged default was unsupported by the record, the penalty under Section 15A(a) was reduced from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:19:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171234 Carrying on sub-broker activity before obtaining registration, after the relevant 1992 Rules had been rescinded, was treated as a regulatory breach attracting penalty under the SEBI Act, and the penalty under Section 15HB was upheld. Failure to furnish documents called for in summonses also sustained liability under Section 15A(a), because partial compliance did not excuse non-production of specific required records. The absence of unlawful gain or investor loss was relevant to the quantum of penalty under Section 15J, not to liability itself. However, as one alleged default was unsupported by the record, the penalty under Section 15A(a) was reduced from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171234