ADJ/UN/11/2003-04
ORDER OF ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING ENQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995 AGAINST NEW VISION INVESTMENT PRIVATE LTD. IN THE MATTER OF INVESTIGATIONS IN THE CASE OF DSQ SOFTWARE LTD.
Under Rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995, Chairman, SEBI, vide his Order dated April 2, 2003 read with Order dated July 24, 2003, appointed the undersigned as Adjudicating Officer in place of Shri Ananta Barua to enquire into and adjudge alleged violation of Section 15 A of the SEBI Act, 1992 New Vision Investment Private Ltd.
The proceedings were initiated for alleged violation of failure to comply with following letters/summons issued by SEBI for production of documents/ submission of information relating to the dealings in the shares of DSQ Software Ltd. by New Vision Investment Private Ltd.:
|
Letter No./ Date of summons/ letters
|
Addressed at
|
Letter/summons for personal appearance/production of documents
|
|
Letter No. IES/ID2/ RKK/32693/01 dated July 18, 2001 with summons
|
207, Paras Apts., Madhu Vihar, Partapganj, New Delhi – 110 092.
|
Summons for production of documents by July 19, 2001
|
|
IES/ID2/RKK/SP/DSQ/12263/2002 dated July 4, 2002 with summons
|
C/o. Shri Ashim Kumar Sen, Flat No. C-1, Sapta Parni Apartments, 63/28, Dumdum Road, Calcutta – 700074.
|
Summons for personal appearance on July 9, 2002
|
Show cause notice under adjudication proceedings were issued at both the addresses and sent by speedpost but both letters were returned undelivered, the New Delhi one with the reason “No such firm at this address” and the Calcutta one with the reason “Intimation sent”.
Appreciation of evidence and findings
Summons dated July 18, 2001
It is noted that the above summons dated July 18, 2001 sent to Delhi is for production of documents at Bombay office of SEBI by July 19, 2001. Apart from the fact that SEBI was not able to produce any proof for delivery of summons, there is little possibility of complying with the summons considering the date of summons and the date by which compliance was demanded.
Summons dated July 4, 2002
From the records made available, it is noted that the summons was sent both by courier and speedpost.. The speedpost has been apparently returned undelivered with the reason “not claimed” as per noting on photocopy of cover. SEBI has not been able to produce proof of delivery for summons sent through courier and has informed that the letters dated 18.7.2001 and 3.7.2002 were returned undelivered and that the company was not traceable at their registered office address.
It is seen from para 3.5 of SEBI Chairman’s order dated 4th October, 2004 that the Chairman has noted that the entity is not available at their registered address.
Conclusion
In view of the fact that there is no proof for service of summons, no case is made out for penalty under Section 15 A.
USHA NARAYANAN
ADJUDICATING OFFICER
27.10.2004
NOTE: This order could not be served upon the delinquent by personal delivery to him or to his agent or by registered post at his last known address, and therefore, the delinquent, if he so desires, may procure a certified copy of the order from Investigation Department, SEBI on payment of charges as may be applicable (which is currently Rs.5/- per page subject to a minimum of Rs.50/-).