Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

BEFORETHESECURITIESAPPELLATETRIBUNAL

MUMBAI
Misc.ApplicationNo.13of2015
And
AppealNo.13of2015

Dateofdecision:19/02/2015

ViprasCorporationLtd.
VillageNiphan,SavroliKharpadaRoad,
Khopoli,Dist.Raigad,
Pin410203.

Versus

Securities&ExchangeBoardofIndia
SEBIBhavan,C4A,GBlock,
BandraKurlaComplex,Bandra(E),
Mumbai400051.

Appellant

Respondent

Mr.KiritDamania,AuthorizedRepresentativefortheAppellant.

Mr.YogeshChande,AdvocatefortheRespondent.

CORAM: JusticeJ.P.Devadhar,PresidingOfficer

A.S.Lamba,Member

Per:JusticeJ.P.Devadhar(Oral)

Misc.ApplicationNo.13of2015

By this Misc. Application, Appellant seeks condonation of 91 days


delayinfilingtheappeal.Forthereasonsstatedintheapplication,thedelay
iscondoned.

Misc.Applicationstandsdisposedofaccordingly.

AppealNo.13of2015

1.
ThisappealisfiledtochallengeOrderdated1stAugust,2014whereby
theAdjudicatingOfficerofSecuritiesandExchangeBoardofIndia(SEBI)has
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

-2-

imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 on the Appellant under Section 15A(a) of


SecuritiesandExchangeBoardofIndiaAct,1992(SEBIActforshort).

2.

On perusal of the impugned Order, it is seen that penalty of

Rs.1,00,000/isimposedupontheAppellantonthegroundthattheAppellant
apartfromnotredressingtheinvestorgrievances,hadfailedtoapplyforand
obtainSCORESauthenticationandfailedtosubmitactiontakenreportonthe
investors grievances in spite of letter addressed by SEBI on 15th February,
2013andinspiteofissuingacirculartothateffectonApril17,2013.

3.

The representative of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant

company is a sick company and is closed since last 10 years. The


representativeoftheAppellantfurthersubmittedthatthedelayinobtaining
theSCORESauthenticationwasunintentionalandwasmainlyduetothefact
that the Appellantcompany was not functioning and there were no
employeesintheAppellantcompany.Inthesecircumstances,itissubmitted
thattheexcessiveandunreasonablepenaltyimposedupontheAppellantbe
quashedandsetaside.

4.

Inthepresentcase,itisnotindisputethattheAppellanthasfailedto

applyandobtaintheSCORESauthenticationwithinthetimestipulatedinthe
letter addressed by SEBI on 15th February, 2013. It is contended by the
representativeofthecomplainantthatSCORESauthenticationwasobtained
sometime in December, 2013. For the delay in disobeying the directions of
SEBI,penaltyimposableisRs.OnelacperdaysubjecttothelimitofRs.One
Crore. In the present case, penalty at the rate of Rs.One lac per day would
workouttomorethanRs.Onecrore.AsagainstthepenaltyofRs.Onecrore

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

-3-

imposable, the Adjudicating Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/


which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. Fact that during the
relevantperiodthecompanywasnotoperationalcannotbeagroundforthe
Appellant to disobey the directions of SEBI in applying and obtaining
SCORESauthentication.

5.

Inthecircumstances,weseenoreasontoentertaintheAppealandthe

sameisherebydismissedwithnoorderastocosts.

Sd/
JusticeJ.P.Devadhar

PresidingOfficer

19/02/2015
Prepared&comparedbyddg

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Sd/
A.S.Lamba
Member