TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra (Gujarat). The two appeals have been preferred against impugned orders dated March 25, 2011 and May 9, 2005 imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lac and Rs. 5 lac on appellant for violation of provisions of Sections 15C, 15A(a) of SEBI Act, 1992 in appeal no. 59 of 2014 and penalty of Rs. 2 lac under Section 15C of SEBI Act in appeal no. 60 of 2014. Two miscellaneous applications no. 42 of 2014 and 43 of 2014 have also been preferred for condonation of delay of 1036 days and 3182 days in the two appeals respectively. Both the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the question of delay and for the reasons stated in the miscellaneous applications, as well as in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned by allowing two miscellaneo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uary 28, 2005, March 16, 2005 and April 13, 2005. The appellant did not bother to appear and as such violation of provisions of Section 15C of SEBI Act was established on the basis of material brought on the record of learned adjudicating officer and a penalty of Rs. 2 lac was imposed on the appellant for the said violation. The said amount was required to pay within 45 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order dated May 9, 2005 which has been challenged in present appeal no. 60 of 2014 after a lapse of 3182 days. 5. Turning to the facts of appeal no. 59 of 2014, SEBI found that there were 114 investors' complaints pending against appellant as on September 2008. These grievances were largely pertaining to non-receipt of shares af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow the appeal no. 59 has been preferred by the appellant after lapse of 1036 days. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rahul Totala, vehemently argued that the two orders are required to be quashed and set aside in as much as the complaints in question have since been redressed. It is stated by the appellant in para 5(v) of the appeal that there were four directors in the company, namely, Mr. Chandrakant Gandhi Mr. S. K. Gandhi, Mr. Rinki S. Gandhi and Mr. Mahesh Thakar. Mr. Suryakant Patel resigned from the board of directors on June 22, 1987. Mr. Rinki Gandhi was appointed on the board of directors on December 30, 1987. He also resigned from the board of directors on March 1, 2005 and tendered his resignation to the company but co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of Section 19 read with Sections 11(4) (b) and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992. It is, therefore, contended that the two impugned orders should also be withdrawn by the respondent and alternatively be quashed by this Tribunal. 8. Per contra, Shri Kumar Desai, learned counsel for the respondent has emphatically argued that the two orders in question do not require any interference by this Tribunal in as much as the appellant has displayed total indifference towards almost about 200 complaints of investors for years together. SEBI has repeatedly advised by issuing letters and reminders to do the needful to the appellant but to no purpose. The appellant has shown a callous attitude in dealing with the investors' grievances and in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one in the present two appeals. Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, a penalty of Rs. 1 lac for each day during which such failure to redress investors' grievances continues has been prescribed by law which can be levied upon the defaulter company subject to a maximum of Rs. 1 crore. In the present case, admittedly, the default to redress investors' grievances in question has continued for years together. This is a blatant violation of law and the regulators' orders in this regard. 10. It is also pertinent to note that keeping in view the great importance of speedy redressal of investors' grievances, SEBI has introduced a SEBI Complaints Redress System, popularly known as 'SCORES' for this purpose. With the introduction of SCORES....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2 lac under Section 15A(a) of SEBI Act has been imposed. Penalty at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per day from September 25, 2008 till passing of impugned order dated March 25, 2011 for not redressing 114 investors' grievances would be more than Rs. 1 crore, however, inspite of persistent default on part of appellant, Ld. adjudicating officer has taken a lenient view and imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lac under Section 15C and penalty of Rs. 2 lac 15A(a) of SEBI Act which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. 13. Argument of the appellant that it was a sick company and had only few employees and, therefore, investors' grievances could not be redressed does not impress us, because, obligation under the SEBI Act to comply with investors' grie....