Home | Back |
BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE BOARD OF [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. AP/AO-08/2006-07] Under Section 15-I of Securities and Exchange Board
of India Act, 1992 read with Rule 4(3) of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry
and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995� In respect of � ANGAD NIRYAT PVT. LTD
AND �
In
the matter of Investigations in FAST CAPITAL GROWTH LTD.1.0 Securities and
Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred as �SEBI�) conducted investigations
in the scrip of Fast Capital Growth Ltd.�
(hereinafter referred as �FCG�) for the period from October 1995 to
December 1995. Pursuant to this investigations, SEBI appointed Mr. K.R.C.V.
Seshachalam, as the Adjudicating Officer under Rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure For
Holding Inquiry And Imposing Penalties By Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995
(hereinafter, Adjudication Rules) read with Section 15 I of SEBI Act, 1992 to
inquire into and adjudge the alleged failure of Angad Niryat Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter
referred as �ANPL�) to comply with the summons issued by the Investigating Officer under
provisions of Section 11(3) of SEBI Act, 1992 for which penalty is imposable under
Sections 15A (a) of SEBI Act, 1992. The aforesaid appointment was conveyed vide order
dated ���������������������������������������������������������� 2.0
In terms of Rule
4(1) of the Adjudication Rules, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 3.0
In the instant case
the allegation against ANPL is that it did not respond to the summons dated 3.1
The summons issued to ANPL by the investigating officer on 3.2
I have also noted another major discrepancy in the
summons as far as the person before whom the entity was to be present.� On one hand, the summons states that the entity
was summoned to appear before Kum. Susan Kurian, Regional Manager of SEBI at
Kolkata on the other hand the same summons also state that the entity was to
appear before the investigating officer i.e. Smt. Usha Narayanan who issued the
summons.� 3.3
Another infirmity
noticed with respect to the summons is that it did not bear the date and time
at which the entity was to attend before the Regional Manager of
SEBI/Investigating Officer.�� In my view
it is not possible to enforce the said summons. 3.4
As regards service
of the summons, I have not found any document to prove that the summons was
served upon ANPL. 4.0
From the aforesaid it is clear that the matter has been referred for
Adjudication despite the fact that summons are not served on ANPL. �From the material on record, there is nothing
to suggest that fresh summons was issued to ANPL in the matter of FCG. If the
summons is not served, then the legal obligation on ANPL to furnish information
and to be present before the IO does not arise. Logically, in the absence of
legal obligation in the first place, default of obligation does not arise at
all. 5.0
Considering the observations recorded in paragraph 3.0 and 4.0 above.� I am not inclined to proceed further in the
matter.� Also in terms of Rule 4 (3) of
Adjudication Rules a duty is cast upon the A.O. to proceed with the inquiry
only if he is of the opinion that inquiry should be held.� For the reasons recorded above, I am of the
firm view that inquiry should not be held in the matter for the alleged
violations in the SCN. 6.0
As no inquiry is needed to be held in this case, for the reasons recorded
above, I am hereby dropping the charges against Angad Niryat Pvt. Ltd in the
instant Adjudication proceedings. 7.0
This order of adjudication is made and passed on 20th day of July
2006 at Mumbai. AMIT
PRADHAN ADJUDICATING
OFFICER |
![]() | Printer Friendly page | ![]() | Email this page |
The site is best viewed in Internet Explorer 11.0+, Firefox 24+ or Chrome 33+.