TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate i/b. Seth & Rathn Law Associates LLP. For the Respondent : Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Sagar Dhakane, Advocate i/b. Agama Law Associates. ORDER PER: JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER These three appeals are directed against the common order dated August 24, 2022 passed by the WTM [Whole Time Member], SEBI [Securities and Exchange Board of India] imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act [Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992] against Noticees No. 4, 22 and 23 in the show cause notice issued by the SEBI. 2. Noticee No. 4 is appellant in appeal No. 432 of 2024. 3. Noticee No. 22 is appellant in appeal No. 431 of 2024. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 15 HA of the SEBI Act. 6. Noticee No. 4 submitted her reply stating that she had joined the Company in 1995 and became its Director (Technical) in 2000. Noticee No. 22 has stated in her reply that she was working with the Company for 27 years. When the Company was in huge financial crisis, Noticee No. 25, Mr. Murli Prakash Naidu had approached her and wanted to use her demat account. She and her Brother-in-law (Noticee No. 23- Mr. Shem Raja Sudhakar) had permitted Mr. Murli Naidu to trade in their demat account. 7. After adjudication, by the impugned order a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs each has been imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act on the appellants i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that all three appellants in these appeals have admitted in paragraphs No. 5 and 6 of their application for condonation of delay that they have received the adjudication order on August 30, 2022. The delay in filing the appeals is not explained. Thus, he further submitted that these appeals do not merit consideration both on the question of limitation as also the merits; and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 11. We have carefully considered rival submissions on both delay and merits; and perused the records. 12. Noticee No. 4 (Ms. Chandra Ravindran) has admitted in para 6 of the application that she had received the adjudication order on August 30, 2022. She was working as Director Technical with the company. We were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd meetings and AGM meetings also, 8) I was asked to sign the balance sheet, though I never involved in any finance matters, neither I was an investor or guarantor, I was asked to sign the balance sheet because they told me that since I was a director, I need to sign 9) Because MD and company secretary and auditor signed, under sole belief and trust I signed, even then I used to ask why should I, they said that as a director I should," 15. In her affidavit dated July 16, 2021 (Exhibit C) submitted before the WTM, Noticee No. 22 has stated thus: "I SHEILA SHEKAR, wife of Late K. N. Babu Rajasekar, Indian, aged about 56 years, residing at No. A-23, Kasthuri Block, Shanthiniketan Apts., Link Road, Adamba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." (Emphasis supplied) 16. In paragraph No. 5 of the memorandum of appeal, notice No. 23 has stated that Noticee No. 25 had used his demat. 17. In substance, appellants have admitted the acts done by them but seek to explain that they had acted at the instance of some other person. 18. We may record that Noitcee No. 4 holds a doctorate degree and she was the Technical Director of the Company. She has admitted to have signed the financial statements. Noticee No. 23 was also an employee of the Company. The total number of shares transacted in her demat account are 7,50,000 and a sum of Rs. 3,32,30,776 has been transferred to the promoters. ....