IN THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No. 63/2005
|
Date of Hearing
|
26.4.2005
|
|
Date of Decision
|
29.4.2005
|
In the matter of:
|
Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd.
|
Appellant – Represented by
|
|
|
Mr. U.S. Kharsikar, Manager
|
|
Versus
|
|
|
Securities & Exchange Board
|
Respondent –Represented by
|
|
of India
|
Mr. Vineet Yash, Manager, SEBI
|
Coram:
Justice Kumar Rajaratnam, Presiding Officer
Per: Justice Kumar Rajaratnam, Presiding Officer
1. The appeal is taken up with consent of parties.
2. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the respondent in imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has preferred this appeal.
3. The appellant had violated Regulation 18(3) of the SEBI (Central Listing Authority) Regulations, 2003 read with clause 51 of the Listing Agreement.
4. The gamut of the charge is that there was a delay of one and half years in uploading the information on EDIFAR.
5. The finding of the adjudicating officer was that the appellant had received the password and the user ID from NIC on 7.2.2003 but the required financial information for the period from September 2002 to June 2004 had been uploaded on EDIFAR only on September 3, 2004.
6. The appellant submitted that the company had wide spread agitation by the employees and the company had become financially sick.
7. The only question that arose before the Tribunal was whether a penalty can be imposed against an appellant in the teeth of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1995. The matter is no longer res integra. The bench of the Calcutta High Court in CO No. 2317/2004 has stated in passing that penalty proceedings are not covered under Section 22 of the Act. However, the Court further held that these are matters that can be agitated before the Tribunal.
8. Considering the fact that the appellant has not paid the investors so far and there were 918 complaints with regard to non-payment of dues by the appellant, it would not be open for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.
9. I also find that the adjudicating officer has taken the financial constraints of the appellant into account in imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. There is no merit in the appeal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Justice Kumar Rajaratnam
Presiding Officer
|
Place: Mumbai
Date: 29.4.2005
//SR40528