TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are directed against the orders both dated June 28, 2011 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a monetary penalty of Rs. 10 lakh each on the appellants under Section 15HA of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the Act) for violating regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (for short FUTP Regulations). 2. The appellant is a stock broker registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short the Board) and its shares are listed on the National Stock Exchange Limited (NSE). The appellant was served with a show cause notice dated July 20, 2010 alleging ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also charged for violating provisions of regulations 3 and 4 of FUTP Regulations. While deciding her appeal (No. 180 of 2011 decided on November 15, 2011), this Tribunal has held as under: " The disclosures made by the appellant from time to time have been tabulated in the form of a chart which is referred to in paragraph 23 of the impugned order and the same is reproduced hereinafter for facility of reference. As on 30.06.08 As on 30.09.08 As on 31.12.08 As on 31.03.09 As on 30.06.09 Promoter Actual 17094209 16876387 14471342 6680048 12871943 34.19 33.75 28.94 13.93 13.42 Disclosed 2,54,38,489 2,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestors and the public and if the figures are inaccurate or inflated, it is obvious that the investors and the public are being defrauded. The explanation that has been furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant for this huge variance in the two figures is that the shares representing the difference between the two figures had in fact been pledged with Dena Bank some time in the year 1999 and, according to the appellant, the respondent Board failed to take into account these pledged shares. This explanation cannot be accepted. It is common case of the parties that 27 per cent of the total share capital of the company that was held by the promoters had been pledged with Dena Bank by way of security for the trading facility which it h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors luring them to invest in the company. We are, therefore, satisfied that the provisions of Regulations 3 and 4 of the FUTP Regulations had been violated. In this view of the matter, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs is justified." We are of the view that the above reasoning squarely applies to the company as well as to the appellant in Appeal no. 179 of 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish these two appeals from the appeal of Alka Pandey stating that Brijesh Kothari, who is the appellant in Appeal no. 179 of 2011, and M/s. Alka Securities Ltd., which is the appellant in Appeal no. 181 of 2011, cannot be held guilty of violating the provisions of FUTP Regulations because their case stands on a dif....