| Home | Back |
|
SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE BOARD OF [Order of Adjudicating Officer under Rule
5 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating
Officer) Rules, 1995 in the matter of Raptakos Brett
& Co. Ltd.] 1.1
Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. was incorporated in the
year 1962 as a public limited company and is listed on the Bombay Stock
Exchange.� M/s. Griesheim
had come out with an open offer for the takeover of the company, which was
announced on 1.2
There were allegations that there might have been some
purchases by executives/officers of the captioned company just before the AGM
when the takeover issue was announced. �There were also allegation of fraud by the
company in selling of its subsidiary just prior to the takeover thereby
affecting the valuation of BOCL and the offer price. 1.3
The company was also in the news for the sale of Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd., a nearly wholly owned
subsidiary of BOCL to two private companies of the promoters for just Rs.11.25 crores.� The minority
shareholders aggrieved by this sale filed a case in the Bombay High Court
alleging fraud by the promoters. 2.0
Chairman, vide his orders dated October 26, 1998 appointed
Smt Usha Narayan, Chief General Manager to inquire into the dealings
in the shares of BOCL to find out contraventions, if any, of the following
provisions. a)
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent & Unfair Trade
Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. b)
SEBI(Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 c)
SEBI(Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Rules and Regulations,
1992 d)
SEBI(Merchant Bankers) Rules and Regulations, 1992 e)
SEBI (Registrars to an Issue and Share Transfer Agents)
Rules and Regulations 1993 f)
SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers)
Regulations, 1997. 2.1
The Investigating Authority issued a summons to the
Managing Director of Raptakos, Brett & Company
(hereinafter referred to as Raptakos) on 2.2���� Raptakos
prima facie failed to comply with summons.�
The undersigned was, therefore, appointed as an
Adjudicating Officer under Rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and
Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 to enquire and adjudge
into the alleged violation of Section 15 A of the SEBI Act, 1992 by Raptakos, vide order of Chairman dated 6.11.2003. 3.0
The undersigned issued a show cause
notice dated 16.08.2004 under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Rule
3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating
Officer) Rules, 1995 to Raptakos.� The contents of the notice are as under: 3.1
Raptakos vide their
letter dated 1.
Raptakos stated that they
were surprised to receive a show cause notice almost six years after the event,
in relation to which SEBI has alleged lack of compliance on their part. 2.
Whilst they reserve their right to provide a detailed response
to the show cause notice, they believe that it is necessary for SEBI to have a
brief background of what has transpired in the last two years in the matter.� In this regard, they invite SEBI�s kind attention to the fact that almost two years ago
on receiving a summons from the Investigating Officer, they had respectfully
urged upon her to furnish them with the nature of investigation to which her
communication and requirements are related.�
They quoted their letter dated �Since
we are unaware of the nature of the investigations, to which you refer, could
you enlighten us on the subject so as to enable us to appreciate whether your
summons is or is not proper exercise of the powers specified in Section 11 of
the SEBI Act�. 3.
After well over a month, they received a reply dated
October 21, 2002 from the Investigating Officer stating, inter alia, that she was empowered to
summon any person or entity who in her opinion was in possession of any
information in connection with the investigation which in this case was in
connection with the divestment of Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. in Raptakos.� They
stated that they were clearly informed by the said letter that their presence
is required in connection with the divestment of their company by Bombay Oxygen
Corporation Ltd. 4.
However, from the order dated 5.
They stated that the alleged investigation relating to the
selling or dealing in shares of Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd. is completely
different, both in its applicability and content, from the requirements
conveyed to them by the said Investigating Officer, which was expressed to be
in relation to the divestment by Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd of shares in our
company. 6.
They stated that it is not only the context of
investigation stated by the Investigation Officer that clearly falls outside
the authorization dated October 26, 1998 granted to her by the Chairman of the
Board but also, arguably, the subject enquiry that would fall outside the
powers of SEBI under the SEBI Act. 7.
They stated that they furnished detailed replies from time
to time and have pointed out that they are not a listed company and therefore
called upon the said Investigating Officer to enlighten them on the
subject.� ��In the circumstances, they call upon to close
the adjudication proceedings initiated through the show cause notice. 8.
Raptakos stated that the
function of SEBI is amply served by looking at investor protection in its totality.� Instead, in a recent decision in the case of
Reliance Industries Limited, the Securities Appellate Tribunal was pleased to
hold that SEBI cannot base its decisions merely on technicalities. 9.
The show cause notice threatens to levy a monetary fine
which is nothing but a penal action.�
Hence they invite SEBI�s attention to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Limited v. The State of �An
order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the
result of a quasi criminal proceeding, and the penalty will not ordinarily be
imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of the
law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious
disregard of its obligation.� Penalty
will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.� Whether penalty should be imposed for failure
to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to
be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant
circumstances.� Even if a minimum penalty
is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified
in refusing to impose penalty, where there is a technical or venial breach of
the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief
that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the
statute�. 10.
Raptakos stated that the
Supreme Court held that penal action is warranted only if an action or conduct
is contumacious in nature.� The Supreme
Court took pains to point out that the technicalities cannot be the basis for
any penal action.� It is unfortunate that
despite our calling upon the said Investigating Officer to let us have the
nature of the enquiry, she misled them by informing them that the enquiry
related to the divestment of shares by Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd in our
company, whereas they only now know, the authority for investigation related to
a completely different subject. 11.
Therefore, they requested to close the adjudication
proceedings.� They further requested for
a personal hearing in the event SEBI is disinclined to close the adjudication
proceedings. 4.0
After considering the reply of Raptakos
dated 10.9.04, the undersigned issued a notice dated 15.9.04 under Rule 4 (3)
of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry) Rules, 1995, giving an opportunity for
hearing on 29.9.04 at 11.30 a.m. 1.
Raptakos, vide
communication dated 24.9.04 authorised Mr Jagdish C Vora,
Chartered Accountant to act, appear and plead on their behalf at the
hearing.� Shri Vora
appeared on behalf of Raptakos and stated that they
wanted time to address the substantive issues involving the show cause
notice.� Hence the matter was posted to
19.10.04 at 2.
Raptakos, vide
communication dated 29.9.04 appointed Shri Vivek Menon, Advocate, High Court, Mumbai to appear, act, plead
and receive or pay money on their behalf in the above case. 3.
Shri Vivek Menon
along with Shri J.C. Vora appeared before the
Adjudicating Officer on 19.10.2004 and made the following submissions. 4.
Shri Menon stated that the
investigating authority appointed under order dated 5.
�Shri Menon relied upon the case Hemant
S. Sonawala (HUF) vs SEBI
�[2002] 40 SCL 629 (SAT � MUM.) (para
53). 6.
Without prejudice to the above argument, Shri Menon had contended that the noticee cannot be an
intermediary under section 12 of SEBI Act since it is not required to be
registered.� Further, to summon the noticee
under Section 11 (1) of the SEBI Act the investigation authority requires
proper authorization by the Board. 7.
Shri Menon further stated that
at no stage they refused to furnish information to the investigating authority
and that they were always promptly responding to the correspondence of the
investigating authority.� The noticee
sought certain material information to ascertain their obligation in law before
passing the information. 8.
Commenting on the nature of information sought by the
investigating authority, Shri Menon stated that the
information is available in the public domain and that they were not in
exclusive possession of the same. 9.
Shri Menon further pointed out
the inordinate delay in seeking the information.� He stated that whereas the order of the
Chairman appointing the investigating authority dated 10.
Without prejudice to the above submissions, Shri Menon stated that Section 15 A of the SEBI Act as amended
is not applicable to the present case since the cause of action has first
arisen on 5.0���� I
have considered the summons, the charges and the replies thereof of of Raptakos and the submissions, documents.� Raptakos is a nearly
wholly owned subsidiary of BOCL.�
Investigation was also initiated for alleged fraud by the promoters of
BOCL in the sale of its subsidiary to two private companies of the promoters
for just Rs.11.25 crores., thus affecting the valuation of BOCL and the offer
price.� �The issues that arise for consideration in
this matter are as under:���������� 5.1���� Raptakos
contended that as per the order of the Chairman, SEBI appointing the
investigating authority, the appointment was only to enquire into the affairs
relating to buying, selling or dealing in the shares of BOCL.� But the summons was issued to Raptakos for being present before the Investigating
Authority in connection with the divestment of Raptakos
by BOCL.� Raptakos
vehemently contended that the Investigating Authority had misused the
authorization given to and was trying to seek information by misleading
it.� Raptakos
further contended that they were not an intermediary covered under Section 12
of SEBI Act, 1992.� They also contended
that they were not persons associated with securities market.� They, therefore, stated that they were not
legally obliged to reply to the summons of the Investigating Authority.� 5.2���� In this connection, the
order appointing Investigating Authority referred above is worth examining.� The order dated 26/10/1998 signed by the then
Chairman, Shri D.R. Mehta, appointed Smt. Usha Narayanan as Investigating Authority to �to inquire
into the affairs relating to buying, selling or dealing in shares of M/s.
Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd submit a report to the Board at the
earliest�.� The said order was issued to
ascertain whether any provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and various Rules and
Regulations made thereunder have been violated. a.
whether there are any circumstances which would render any
person guilty or having contravened any of the regulations of the SEBI
(Prohibition of Fraudulent Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities
Market) Regulations 1995; b.
whether any provision of the SEBI (Insider Trading)
Regulations 1992 have been violated by any person who is an insider or any
person who is deemed to be an insider or connected person; and c.
Whether any person who is a stock broker is guilty of
having contravened the provisions of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers)
Regulations, 1992, framed thereunder. d.
Whether any Merchant Banker is guilty of having
contravened the provision of the SEBI Act, 1992 or the SEBI (Merchant Bankers
Rules and Regulations) 1992 framed thereunder. e.
Whether any Registrar or a share transfer agent has violated
any provision of the SEBI Act, 1992 or The SEBI (Registrars to an Issue and
Share Transfer Agents) Rules and Regulations 1993 framed thereunder. f.
Whether any violations of SEBI
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 has
taken place. ��������� It is also clear from
the said order that the same was passed under regulation 7 of SEBI (Prohibition
of Fraudulent Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market)
Regulations 1995, Regulation 5 of SEBI (Insider Trading) Regulations 1992,
regulation 38 of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers)
Regulations, 1997.� 5.3���� Regulation 40 of SEBI
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 cast upon
the obligations of persons in general in case of an investigation as under: Obligations
on investigation by the Board 40. (1) It shall be the duty of the acquirer, the seller, the target
company, the merchant banker whose affairs are being investigated and of every
director, officer and employee thereof, to produce to the investigating officer
such books, securities, accounts, records and �other documents in its custody or control and
furnish him with such statements and information relating to his activities as
the investigating officer may require, within such reasonable period as the
investigating officer may specify. (2) The acquirer, the seller, the target company, the merchant banker
and the persons being investigated shall allow the investigating officer to
have reasonable access to the premises occupied by him or by any other person
on his behalf and also extend reasonable facility for examining any books,
records, documents and computer data in the possession of the acquirer, the
seller, the target company, the merchant banker or such other person and
also provide copies of documents or other materials which, in the opinion of
the investigating officer are relevant for the purposes of the investigation. (3) The investigating officer, in the course of investigation, shall
be entitled to examine or to record the statements of any director, officer or
employee of the acquirer, the seller, the target company, the merchant banker. (4) It shall be the duty of every director, officer or employee of the
acquirer, the seller, the target company, the merchant banker to give to the
investigating officer all assistance in connection with the investigation,
which the investigating officer may reasonably require. (emphasis
supplied). 5.4���� Regulation 9 of SEBI
(Prohibition of Fraudulent Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities
Market) Regulations 1995 reads as under: �Duty to produce records, etc. 9. (1) It shall be the duty of every person in respect of whom an
investigation has been ordered under regulation 8 to produce to the
Investigating Officer such books, accounts and other documents in his custody
or control and furnish him with such statements and information as the said
officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation. (2) Without prejudice to the generality
of the provisions of sub-regulation (1), such person shall - (a) allow the
Investigating Officer to have access to the premises occupied by such person at
all reasonable times for the purpose of investigation; (b) extend to
the Investigating Officer reasonable facilities for examining any books,
accounts and other documents in his custody or control (whether kept manually
or in computer or in any other form) reasonably required for the purposes of
the investigation; (c) provide to such Investigating
Officer copies of any such books, accounts and records which, in the opinion of
the Investigating Officer, are relevant to the investigation or, as the case
may be, allow him to take out computer outprints
thereof. (3) The Investigating Officer shall,
for the purpose of investigation, have power to examine orally and to record
the statement of the person concerned, any director, partner, member or
employee of such person. (4) It shall be the duty of every person concerned, to give to the
Investigating Officer, all such assistance and otherwise extend all such co-
operation as may reasonably be required in connection with the investigation
and to furnish information relevant to such investigation as may be reasonably
sought by such officer. 5.5���� Further, Regulation 7 of
SEBI (Insider Trading) Regulations 1995 reads as under: �Obligations of insider on investigation by the
Board 7. (1)� It shall be the duty of
every insider, who is being investigated, to produce to the investigating
authority such books, accounts and other documents in his custody or control
and furnish the authority with the statements and information relating to the
transactions in securities market within such time as the said authority may
require. (2) The insider shall allow the investigating authority to have
reasonable access to the premises occupied by such insider and also extend
reasonable facility for examining any books, records, documents and computer
data in his possession of the stock- broker or any other person and also
provide copies of documents or other materials which, in the opinion of the
investigating authority are relevant. (3) The investigating authority, in the course of investigation, shall
be entitled to examine or record statements of any member, director, partner
proprietor and employee of the insider. (4) It shall be the duty of every director, proprietor, partner,
officer and employee of the insider to give to the investigating authority all
assistance in connection with the investigation, which the insider may be
reasonably expected to give. 5.6���� It
is, therefore, obvious from the above that every person concerned with the
matter is under obligation to give information as sought by the Investigating
Authority.� The decision to call for such
information and the judgment as to its relevancy�� is completely at the discretion of the
Investigating Authority.� Therefore, it
is difficult to agree with Raptakos that Investigation
Officer has no authority to call for the information from them.� Admittedly, the subject investigation was
under both takeover and insider trading regulations.� The company involved is BOCL.� The information as to divestment of Raptakos by BOCL is certainly a relevant information in an
investigation into alleged takeover violations and insider trading violations.� The divestment is price sensitive information
within the meaning given to it under insider trading regulations.� The divestment also has its own significance
from the takeover angle since it has an impact on the price determination.� Therefore, I hold that the information sought
for by the Investigating Authority vide summons mentioned above is within her
authority.� 6.0���� The next issue that
arises is whether the Raptakos is required to be an
intermediary under 12 of SEBI Act, 1992 to be summoned by an Investigation
Officer.� From a plain reading of
provisions of regulations cited above, it is obvious that a person need not be
an intermediary to investigate into.� If
a person is suspected of being in possession of relevant information, the
Investigating Authority will have powers to call for such information from such
person.� In case of Karnavati
Fin Cap Vs SEBI it has been held that a company is also a person associated
with Securities Market.� In any case, the
Raptakos fall within the purview of the authority of
Investigating Authority for the reasons stated above.� Therefore, I hold that Raptakos
is legally bound to give information as sought by the Investigating
Authority.� Therefore, the ratio in the
case of Hemant Sonawala Vs
SEBI [2002] 40 SCL 629 is of no relevance in this matter.� 6.1���� The next issue that
arises is whether the Raptakos has violated Section
15 A of SEBI Act, 1992.� I have noted that the Investigating Authority
vide summons dated 1.
Names of Directors during the year 1996 2.
Details of shareholders holding 5% and above viz., name,
address, father�s name, etc. 3.
Current address of Kunal
Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., 6.2���� In this context I have
noted that the annexure did not have the necessary clarity as to the name of
the company for which Investigating Authority was seeking information
about.� I have noted that the Raptakos replied vide letter dated �3.���� Your Summons
required production of documents, which is wholly unclear to us, as will be
evident from the following: ��������� You ask for
names of Directors during the year 1996.�
Whose Directors:� of Bombay Oxygen
Corporation Ltd, or our Company?� If it
is the former, surely, the information would be available to you through the
Stock Exchange which has all information including the one that is sought by
you.� If, on the other hand, it be the
latter, would you kindly clarify as to how you have assumed jurisdiction of
Investigating into the directorship of unlisted companies? ��������� You ask for
details of shareholders holding 5% and above.�
Whose shareholders: of Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd or our
Company?� If it be the former, perhaps
issuing a Summons to the Managing Director of another unlisted company to seek
information which is readily available in the records of the Registrar of
Companies would be, with great respect, an abuse of powers.� If, on the other hand, it be the latter, once
again, since we are an unlisted Company, we are unable to appreciate the
rationale for asking for information concerning an unlisted company and its
owners. ��������� Item 3 in
the Annexure asks for the current address of �Kunal
Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd.,��� Once again, we are unable to understand the
relevance or otherwise of this information.�
Surely, it is not the task of a regulatory body in-charge of listed
companies to ask for information concerning any and every unlisted company. 6.3���� I have further noted that
the Investigating Authority has replied to the said letter as under: �In
this connection we may inform you that the Investigating Officer is empowered
to summon any person or entity (listed or unlisted), who in the opinion of the
Investigating Officer is in possession of and can furnish information in
connection with the investigation.� Under
the SEBI Act, a person summoned is under obligation to appear before the
Investigating Authority and co-operate.�
Your presence is required in connection with divestment of your company
by Bombay Oxygen Corporation Ltd.� As
regards the details called for, since the summons has been addressed to you,
whatever information called for is with reference to Raptakos,
Brett & Co. Ltd.� You are, therefore,
advised to be present before the undersigned on 6.4���� However, instead of
furnishing the information sought by the investigation officer, Raptakos vide
letter dated 25.10.2002 further contented that: �Having
noted that these issues relate to divestment of shares of our company by Bombay
Oxygen Ltd., we have taken liberty of eliciting information from Bombay Oxygen
ltd. and have received response dated 25.10.02, a copy of which is enclosed. As
you will observe there from, the divestment took place more than 6 years ago,
has been approved by the Board of Directors of the company, reflected in the
audited accounts of that company in its Financial Statement and Directors
Report (in which full disclosure has been made) which are unanimously approved
by the shareholders of the company. With
great respect, we submit the fountainhead of SEBI�s
functions and powers in investors� protection.�
May we also add that the alleged query being presented at this point of
time after 6 years seek information that could be readily available from the
records of the Registrar of the company? Under
the circumstances we believe that your pursuing the line may need some amplifications
and it is for that reason that we request you to kindly provide the following
information: �
The particular Section 4 of SEBI Act under which the Board
reportedly ordered the enquiry. �
Certified True Copy of that decision as also your being so
appointed as, you say, the investigation officer. �
Since to refer to certain consequence under SEBI Act by
citing Section 15B and Section 24 may we point out that an impartial watchdog
ought to consider whether the inquiry needs to be pursued, especially when SEBI
is over burdened with huge backlog?� 6.5���� It is therefore noted
that Raptakos did not give information, but sought
further clarification from the Investigation Officer. It is not clear from the
file as to why the Investigation Officer did not give them further chance to
furnish information as sought in the summons. It is also not clear whether the
said letter was replied by Investigation Officer at all. I therefore hold that
there is merit in the argument of Raptakos that they
never refused to give information and that there was no failure. I have noted
that Investigation Officer had not given any reasons for not reminding the Raptakos further for the said information and that it was simply
assumed that the information would not be furnished by the Raptakos
and proceeded to submit the Investigation Report.� 6.6���� I further see that the
omission if any is not of repetitive in nature since from the time of seeking
information by the Investigation Officer, Raptakos
was asking for further details to give information, albeit with a mischievous
tone. There is nothing on record to show that Raptakos
got any unlawful gains out of this commission or omission, if any.� 6.7���� I have further noted that
the information sought for from Raptakos is not
available exclusively with Raptakos. The non
furnishing of such information is therefore can not be said to have caused any
loss to anybody or hampered the investigation process. Further, there is
nothing on record to prove that the information was deliberately and malafidely suppressed by Raptakos.
This is one of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal no 148/
2003 filed by Silverline Holdings Corporation and
others Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India. I, therefore, hold that the Raptakos is not guilty of failure to furnish information to
the Board as stated under section 15A of SEBI Act, 1992.� 6.8���� I, however, place on
record the reckless tenor of the letters in which they were addressed by Raptakos to Investigation Officer.� I have noted that the correspondence on
behalf of Raptakos was signed by a Company
Secretary.� Being a professional,
especially in corporate law field, the said company secretary should have
realized that the securities market regulator deserves respect and that his
letter should be in appropriately polite manner. The Company Secretary should
have noted that summons seeking information from a regulator are not stigmatic
and are in fact in furtherance of discharge of official duties of Investigating
Authority and that noticee under summons is under legal and moral obligation to
cooperate with Investigating Authority and furnish information without playing
hide and seek as above.� I have noted
that Raptakos unnecessarily took offence to the
summons issued by the Investigation Officer.�
The information sought by the Investigation Officer is not apparently
confidential and therefore it is more incumbent upon Raptakos
to have complied with the summons without entering into the correspondence as
above.� In this connection the judgment
of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petition No.1972 of 1994 filed
ANZ Grindlays and others which held inter alia as
under is worth noting: �No
person can maintain the dignity or cherish prestige by avoiding due process of
law.� Law being a guardian, it maintains
and protects the dignity and honour of every
person.� Dignified and honourable persons have to stand the test and trial
articulated by Law.� And in obedience, he
or she has to submit to the process.�
Cherishing majesty of law and its process is a
inner core of the dignity of individual in a Democratic World, which runs on
the wheel of Rule of Law.� ��������� The following excerpts from the letters of Raptakos cited above exemplify the arrogance exhibited by
Company Secretary.� �You
ask for details of shareholders holding 5% and above.� Whose shareholders: of Bombay Oxygen
Corporation Ltd or our Company?� If it be
the former, perhaps issuing a Summons to the Managing Director of another
unlisted company to seek information which is readily available in the
records of the Registrar of Companies would be, with great respect, an abuse of
powers.� If, on the other hand, it be
the latter, once again, since we are an unlisted Company, we are unable to
appreciate the rationale for asking for information concerning an unlisted
company and its owners.� �Surely,
it is not the task of a regulatory body in-charge of listed companies to ask
for information concerning any and every unlisted company� �With
great respect, we submit the fountainhead of SEBI�s
functions and powers in investors� protection.� May we also add that the alleged query being
presented at this point of time after 6 years seek information that could be
readily available from the records of the Registrar of the company?� �Since
to refer to certain consequence under SEBI Act by citing Section 15B and
Section 24 may we point out that an impartial watchdog ought to consider
whether the inquiry needs to be pursued, especially when SEBI is over burdened
with huge backlog?��� (emphasis furnished) 6.9���� While it is appreciated
that noticee has right to seek information on the authority of the person
issuing summons, it is wholly unnecessary and needless to sermonize the
Investigation Officer on the objects, powers and functions of SEBI.� While it is not appropriate to find fault
with Raptakos for the unprofessional way in which
letters were addressed by its Company Secretary, it is advisable for Raptakos to prevail upon the Company Secretary to be
accommodative and responsive with professional responsibility to the regulatory
requirements of the Regulators.�� 7.0���� On consideration of above
factors and the evidence produced before me I am satisfied that Raptakos has not become liable to pay penalty under section
15 A of SEBI Act, 1992 and hold that this is not fit case for imposing penalty
under section 15 A of SEBI Act, 1992.� As required under
Rule 6 of the said Rules, 1997 a copy of the instant order is being sent to Raptakos and also to SEBI. �� Place: Mumbai������������������������������� ��� KRCV Seschachalam Date: |
|
 | Printer Friendly page |  | Email this page |
