ORDER UNDER RULE 5(1) OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995 IN THE MATTER OF M/S CONSORTIUM SECURITIES (P) LTD.
The undersigned had been appointed as the Adjudicating Officer by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) in terms of an order no. MIRSD/DPS-1/ADJ/06/04-05 dated September 27, 2004 to enquire into and adjudge under Section 15-I of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) the alleged contravention of 15-A (c), 15B, 15-F (a) and 15-F (b) of the said Act against M/s. Consortium Securities (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as CSL/the member) for failure to maintain statutory books of accounts and records, failure to obtain/maintain client registration forms/agreements/ database, failure to issue contract notes in the form and manner prescribed and for delay in delivery of securities and payments to clients.
Brief History:
An inspection of the books of accounts and other records of CSL was conducted by G. Jai & Associates, CA from 29.09.2002 to 15.11.2002. The period covered under the inspection was 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘inspection period’). During the inspection it was found that CSL had violated the aforesaid provisions of the said Act. A copy of the inspection report was furnished to CSL and it was asked to submit its comments on the findings. The replies furnished by CSL were considered and not found satisfactory and as such the undersigned was appointed as an Adjudicating Officer for conducting the present proceedings.
Before I proceed to deal with the case, it would be pertinent to make a reference to the relevant provisions of the said Act:
The provisions of the said Act as alleged to have been contravened by CSL are as under:
Section 15 A If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder:
c) to maintain books of account or records, fails to maintain the same, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less.
Section 15 B If any person, who is registered as an intermediary and is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder to enter into an agreement with his client, fails to enter into such agreement, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less.
Section 15 F If any person, who is registered as a stock broker under this Act,
(a) fails to issue contract notes in the form and manner specified by the stock exchange of which such broker is a you, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the amount for which the contract note was required to be issued by that broker;
(b) fails to deliver any security or fails to make payment of the amount due to the investor in the manner within the period specified in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less.
Show Cause Notice
A Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCN’) dated 13/12/2004 under Rule 4 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry and Imposing penalties by Adjudicating Officers) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) was issued to CSL and it was asked to furnish a reply within 14 days from the receipt of the said notice. CSL was also given an opportunity personal hearing before the undersigned on 23.02.2005 which was attended by Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan, partner J. Sagar Associates along with the Chairman and Joint Managing Director of CSL.
Submissions of CSL:
CSL filed its reply vide their letter dated 16th February, 2005 in response to the SCN under the present Adjudication Proceedings. In addition to it, CSL made oral submissions before the undersigned on 23.02.2005 which was reiterated in their further written submissions dated 04.03.05.
Preliminary Submissions:
CSL has raised a preliminary submission in respect of the maintainability of the present Adjudication proceedings on the ground that separate enquiry proceeding are already being conducted by the undersigned against CSL on the charges which were also the subject matter of the present Adjudication proceedings. CSL has contended that institution of two separate proceedings on the same charges is bad in law and tantamounts to double jeopardy. It was further contended that since one and the same person has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Adjudicating Officer, the findings will be biased and in effect these independent proceedings have become interrelated.
Findings on preliminary submissions:
Before recording findings on merit it would be pertinent to examine the preliminary submissions of CSL in respect of non-sustainability of the present Adjudication Proceedings on the ground of double jeopardy.
Technically speaking, Adjudication proceedings under the SEBI Act and the Enquiry Proceedings under SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘Broker Regulations’) read with the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Enquiry Regulations’) are two separate proceedings and can be proceeded with independently and concurrently with each other. The objection of double jeopardy is not applicable to the civil proceedings as aforesaid and imposition of civil penalties under the SEBI Act. For this proposition, I would like to rely on some cases.
Supreme Court in Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand vs. UOI reported in 1983(3) SCC529, observed that the word ‘penalty’ used in Article 20(1) can not be construed as including a ‘penalty’ levied under the sales tax laws by the departmental authorities for violation of statutory provisions. A penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Authorities is only a civil liability though penal in character (emphasis added).
Division Bench of Bombay High Court of R M Lodha and Anoop V. Mota, JJ in their decision dated 03.03.04 in the case of SEBI vs. Cabot International Capital Corporation observed “………..The scheme of the SEBI Act of imposing monetary penalty is very clear. This chapter nowhere deals with criminal offence. These defaults or failures are nothing but failure or default of summary civil obligations provided under the Act and the Regulations made thereunder………..”
These cases go to show that the SEBI Act and the Regulations made thereunder are not penal statutes but are regulatory and remedial in nature. Proceedings under Chapter VI-A of the Act relating to levy of penalties are adjudicatory in nature and are not criminal proceedings. The Adjudication officer performs quasi judicial functions and does not act as a Court but acts for the purpose of determining the liability for the breach of civil obligations imposed by the SEBI Act and the regulations.
Further, for the bar of Double Jeopardy to operate it is essential that there must have been previous proceeding of prosecution and punishment before a Court of Law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction. The subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding where he is for the second time sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence.
Article 20(2) does not prohibit a provision for two penalties for the same offence. Article 20(2) is not attracted if the proceedings do not constitute a ‘prosecution’ as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Dave vs. St. of Punjab (AIR 1959 S.C. 375).
‘Prosecution’ means an initiation or starting of proceedings of a criminal nature before a court of law or a judicial tribunal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the statute which creates the offence and regulates the punishment – as again held by Supreme Court in Maqbool vs. State of Bombay (1953) SCR 730.
Whether monetary penalty needs to be imposed concurrently with penalty of cancellation or suspension, has to be decided according to the facts and circumstances of each case and due to this reason, the undersigned had clarified during the personal hearing held on February 23, 2005 that the intent behind two separate show cause notices was to examine the imposition of monetary penalty, where provided under Chapter VI-A of the Act and to consider penalties under the Brokers Regulations read with the Enquiry Regulations for the remaining offences. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the undersigned would not be making any recommendation of penalty in the Enquiry proceedings in respect of the common charges.
Having dealt with the preliminary submissions, I now proceed to examine the charges against CSL, one by one:
Charge: Non- Maintenance of Margin Deposit Book and Order Book:
It was alleged that CSL was not maintaining a margin deposit book and order book and by non-maintenance of the aforesaid books it has made itself liable for penalty u/s 15A(c) of the said Act.
Submissions
“4 Legal recognition of electronic records
Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have satisfied if such information or matter is –
(a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and
(b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.”
It was submitted that the said section overrides the provisions of any other law, and therefore maintenance of the margin deposit book by them in electronic form constitutes adequate compliance. A copy of the margin deposit book for the period from 01st April 2000 to 31st March 2002 was also enclosed which contained margin deposited by them with Exchange on a daily basis. Few sample copies of the MG01 reports downloaded from the FTP server were also enclosed.
· It was submitted that the Broker Regulations merely mandate that a margin deposit book must be maintained. No particular form, however, has been specified for the same. Accordingly, maintaining such books of accounts and documents in the electronic form was sufficient compliance of the Broker Regulations. Reference was made to the case of J M Morgan Stanley Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.(“the JMM Case”) where maintenance of prescribed documents in electronic form was considered as being sufficient compliance of the Broker Regulations.
· The Broker Regulations also do not prescribe the contents of an “Order Book”. Regulation 17(1)(a) of the Broker Regulations does make a reference to a ‘sauda book” but does not prescribe any format for maintenance of the same. On the other hand, Regulation 6.1.3(B) of the National Stock Exchange (“NSE”) makes the maintenance of an Order Book optional at the sole discretion of the trading member of the NSE. The contents of such optionally maintainable Order Book have also been set out in the said Regulation.
· In view of the large numbers of retail investors maintenance of order book in the format required was cumbersome and the fact that most of the orders were being received either telephonically or in person in order to ensure efficient and timely execution of trades, they were unable to maintain the order book. Online confirmation were given to clients during trading hours, confirmation memo/contract notes were being sent to clients at the end of day. In addition they were maintaining order log files received from Exchange on a daily basis.
· Attention was drawn to Pages 2 and 3 of the Inspection Report by M/s. G. Jai Associates, Chartered Accountants. It was stated that the Inspection Report categorically records that the Order Book has been maintained in the form of a download of the order log from the NEAT system (the screen-based computer system of the NSE) on a daily basis. Similarly, a download of the margin report from the NEAT system has been maintained on a daily basis. A report of the margin of the individual clients has also been maintained and can be generated from the CSL’s computer system indicating the gross exposure of each client. Consequently, both the Order Book and the Margin Deposit Book have indeed been maintained in electronic form.
· It was further submitted that in identical circumstances, vide an order dated November 30, 2004, passed by an Adjudication Officer of SEBI in the case of M/s. Pace Financial Services Private Limited, SEBI has accepted the reply of the broker. Consequently, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, SEBI as a State ought to ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
Attention was also drawn to the ruling of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) in the case of Radar Securities Limited versus SEBI, in connection with the maintenance of such books in electronic form.
In view of the foregoing, it was submitted that no penalty whatsoever was leviable against CSL in connection with any alleged violation of Section 15A(c) of the SEBI Act.
Findings:
Though the member has not maintained a separate margin deposit book, it appears it has been downloading the margin reports from the NEAT system on a daily basis. The auditors who conducted the inspection have also observed that report of margins of clients could also be generated from the system indicating the gross exposure of each client.
CSL has contended that it had been maintaining the order log files as downloaded from the exchange. A soft copy of the order log files along with the print outs was also submitted during the course of the present adjudication proceedings. The contention of CSL was that order log files as downloaded from the exchange was sufficient for the purpose of maintaining order book as required by the Brokers Regulation. It has been further contended that maintaining of order book other than the order log files as downloaded from the exchange in an environment of automated trading system was not required. It has been further submitted that NSE has made maintenance of order book optional for the members. CSL has relied on the findings of the Adjudicating Officer in the matter of Pace Financials Services Ltd. wherein the Adjudicating Officer had accepted similar submissions made by the member.
The explanation of the member appears to be acceptable and I am inclined to take a lenient view on this charge.
Charge: Deficiency in contract notes
It was alleged that Contract Notes issued by CSL had the following deficiencies:
On the basis of the aforesaid deficiencies, it was alleged that CSL had become liable for penalty u/s 15 F (a) of the said Act.
Submissions:
CSL was not bound to submit the names of authorized signatories to the contract notes to NSE. CSL has neither been informed of any such requirement in the past nor has NSE issued any circular in this regard. Reporting of the names of authorized signatories is not a statutory requirement. Certified copies of the resolutions passed by CSL on 13.08.2001 & 13.03.2002 were enclosed as documentary evidence of the persons stated as authorized signatory in the contract notes.
Contract notes were dispatched by CSL to its clients through courier and the acknowledgements issued by the courier agencies were preserved as a confirmation of receipt of contract notes by the clients. This fact was acknowledged by the Auditors in the Report. Moreover, the circular in question merely highlights irregularities as observed by SEBI, which included non-dispatch of contract notes within the mandatory time period of 24 hours. There was nothing in the said circular which mandates the manner in which the contract notes were dispatched or which mandates that acknowledgment of receipt of contract notes by the constituents must be maintained by a broker, let alone in any particular form. The Inspection Report categorically records that contract notes have been issued to clients within 24 hours of the execution of trades. CSL has therefore complied with all applicable requirements in connection with dispatch of contract notes and by maintaining acknowledgment receipts issued by the courier agencies, CSL has maintained adequate records of receipt of contract notes by the constituents also.
· CSL was bound to maintain contract notes as per the prescribed format of NSE which requirement has been complied with as recorded by the Auditors in paragraph 8.01(1) of the Report. The said format does not provide for order time as such and accordingly the same was not specified by CSL in its contract notes. The order no., trade no., trade time of the trades were duly mentioned by CSL on its contract notes as recorded by the Auditors in the Report. The Report also acknowledges the fact that the order time was not specified in the contract notes since the format of the contract note prescribed by NSE does not provide for the same. (Paragraph 8.02(3) of the Report).
· Clause 3.5 of the NSE Regulations in this regards was reproduced for reference; which is extracted below:
· “ Every Trading Member shall issue a contract note to his constituents for trades executed in such format as may be prescribed by the Exchange from time to time with all relevant details as required therein to be filled in and issued in such manner and within such time as prescribed by the Exchange.” [Emphasis supplied]
· As regard the running serial number of contract notes it was submitted that their back office software did not supplement generation of running serial numbered contract notes. It was submitted that this problem was continuously faced by majority of the brokers due to non availability of good branded softwares. Moreover, they had repeatedly requested their vendor to change the program logic to incorporate the running serial number concept. However vendor was not able to modify the program till the month of January 2002. It was submitted that they had immediately started generation of running serial numbered contract notes after the modification of the program logic by their vendor.
The Report itself states that the irregularity was observed only from 1st April 2000 upto 31st January 2002 after which all contract notes have been numbered serially initialized at the beginning of each calendar year. Even during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.1.2002 all contract notes were numbered serially, the only difference being that the serial numbers were initialized on a daily basis instead of at the beginning of the year. This irregularity was merely technical.
Findings:
Regarding the deficiency as to the names of the authorized signatories in contract notes being not reported to the exchange, I do not find such a requirement in the SEBI Act or Regulations nor any such requirement has been brought to my notice from the NSE Bye laws or circulars issued by NSE. In view of observation of the inspection team that the contract notes have been signed by the employees of the company who are authorized to sign on the contract notes by way of a board resolution as well as the submissions of CSL, in my opinion, the irregularity of non-reporting of such names of the authorized signatories to the stock exchange, if any, is merely a technical irregularity and I am inclined to take a lenient view of the same.
Regarding the non-maintaining of acknowledgements from the constituents on the contract notes, I am of the view that the objective behind maintaining such records is to ensure that the contracts notes have been dispatched within the stipulated time. The purpose can be served if the dispatch receipts were maintained and produced at the time of inspection. The auditors in this case have observed that courier slips acknowledged by the courier agencies have been considered as the prima facie evidence of delivery to customers. In view of such an observation, I agree with the explanation offered by CSL.
Regarding the requirement of order time to be specified in the contract notes, it appears that the format of the contract notes prescribed by the exchange does not have a provision for order time as such I can not hold the member liable for this fault.
However, CSL has admitted that till 31/01/2002 contract notes issued by it were initialized on daily basis. The explanation given by it regarding the inability of the vendor to modify the software programme till January 2002 is not acceptable. In my view, CSL has violated the provisions of Section 15F (a) of the Act in this regard.
Charge: Non-obtaining of Member-Constituent Agreements
It was alleged that the inspection team had observed that out of 320 clients who were selected for verification on sample checking basis, in case of 25 clients, member constituent agreements had not been entered into and client registration application forms had not been obtained, making CSL liable to be penalized under section 15B of the SEBI Act.
Findings:
Though the member has pleaded in the present proceedings that the missing client’s registration forms and the member constituent agreements were not traceable during inspection due to shifting of their administrative and registered office, no such plea was raised before the inspecting authorities. This submission appears to be an afterthought and can not be accepted. Hence, CSL is guilty of violating the provisions of Section 15B of the said Act.
Charge: Delay in payment of funds and delivery of securities
It was alleged that in 148 instances during the period 01-04-2000 to 31-08-2002 delay ranging from 1 day to 52 days was there in payment of funds to the constituents. Also, during the course of verification 14 cases of delay in delivery of securities ranging from 1 to 44 days were observed. In such cases they did not hold authorization letters from clients to retain securities in their own beneficiary accounts beyond 48 hours of the payout date. By delaying deliveries and payments to their clients beyond the stipulated time the member was alleged to have violated the provision of section 15 F(b) of the said Act.
Submissions
· It was submitted that there has not been even a single instance of delay in payment to clients. In certain cases valid written / verbal mandates were given by clients themselves to retain their payments as margin against subsequent trading and to maintain a running account of such clients. It was submitted that they had maintained a system to obtain such mandate from clients who did not want to settle their accounts on a settlement to settlement basis and wished to maintain their accounts on running basis. Mandate letters signed by all the clients (mentioned in annexure VII of the inspection report) to retain their payments as margin and maintain a running account were annexed to the reply. It was further submitted that there has not been a single complaint against them alleging non payment of funds to any of its clients
· Each of the clients concerned in these 148 cases had requested CSL to keep the funds arising out of the sale of securities by them to be retained by CSL for future deployment in future transactions undertaken by such clients. The written mandates given by each of such clients was enclosed with the reply.
· It was further submitted that if such mandates had not been issued or any mandate had been violated, the investors concerned would have a grievance and would have complained in this regard. In this connection, it was significant to note that Paragraph 7.09 of the Inspection Report categorically recorded that no investor complaint whatsoever was lodged against CSL during the period of inspection. CSL was not engaged in any arbitration proceedings with any such client as has been referred to in the inspection report. So also, in respect of delivery of securities, CSL has categorical mandates to retain deliveries arising out of purchases made by clients as security towards future transactions. A copy of each such written mandate was annexed to the Reply. Under this head too, there has been no investor grievance whatsoever. .
· The Broker Regulations, themselves do not prescribe any time deadline or any manner of delivery or payment to investor clients of the brokers. However, SEBI has issued circulars in this regard.
· That Regulations 26(vi) of the Broker Regulations also contemplates that if a client otherwise instructs payment of funds and delivery of securities need not be effected within 48 hours. Since CSL had a written mandate in respect of each of the clients covered in the Inspection Report, no offence can be made out under Section 15F of the SEBI Act.
· Therefore in light of the above mentioned submissions and evidence (mandate letters) enclosed, it was submitted that they have not violated section 15F(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Findings:
It is apparent that the member has failed to deliver the securities and also failed to make payments within the stipulated time. The submission that oral instructions of the clients were available with the member for retention of funds as margin for subsequent trading can not be accepted. However, in view of the fact that there is no investor complaint regarding non payment of funds/non delivery of securities coupled with the fact that the said clients have now given written mandate, I am inclined to take a lenient view of this charge also.
Other general submissions made by CSL
1. Impeccable track record.
2. No proprietary trading done by them during the relevant period.
3. At the relevant time they had in excess of 1500 clients trading through them.
4. The alleged technical lapses were not deliberate and intentional and in contumacious disregard of provisions of law.
5. No default done either by them or by their clients in meeting payment / delivery obligations.
6. There were no complaints against them either by their clients or by any body else.
7. They had not made any gains or derived any unfair advantage as a result of alleged technical and minor lapses.
8. No loss or prejudice had been caused to any client or investor group as a result of alleged technical and procedural lapses
9. The alleged deficiencies as pointed out in the Notice, wherever possible, have already been cured by them.
· It was reiterated that the alleged minor lapses on their part as pointed out in inspection report were purely technical and procedural lapses having no adverse impact on the interest of investors or functioning of the securities market and therefore no recommendation of penalty is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
· Without prejudice to the detailed and specific submissions both factual and legal in relation to each of the alleged violations referred to above, that the Leaned Adjudicating Officer ought to be guided by the provisions of Section 15J of the SEBI Act. Section 15J of the SEBI Act which has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble SAT to be a touch stone for SEBI in the imposition of any disciplinary action of any nature whatsoever, specifically prescribes the following determining factors and guidelines for a decision by the Learned Adjudicating Officer:-
(a) the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage accruing from the default;
(b) the losses caused to an investor on account of the default; and
(c) the repetitive nature of the default.
· In the instant case, neither the adjudication notice nor the Inspection Report have set out any whisper of a disproportionate gain or unfair advantage that may have accrued to CSL on account of the alleged defaults. So also there was no loss whatsoever caused to any investor or group of investors as a result of the alleged defaults.
· There has been no repetition of any such default.
· The allegations made in the Notices were purely technical irregularities occasioned in most cases by operational difficulties. CSL has never intended to circumvent or violate any provisions of the Act, the Regulations or directives issued by SEBI from time to time. CSL has put in place all possible checks and balances to ensure that inadvertent lapses were not repeated again and that the directives of SEBI in all future transactions were complied with.
· It was submitted that in similar cases in the past, the Securities Appellate Tribunal has also thought it fit to give a warning to the concerned brokers instead of imposing any penal recommendations. This course of action has been consistently followed by both, the SAT and SEBI in the past in several cases. CSL referred to such orders passed in the case of Pace Fianncial Services Pvt. Ltd., Sumedha Fiscal Services Ltd. Versus SEBI, Chona Financial Services Versus SEBI, the JMM case, the case of GCM Securities Ltd., Geojit Financial Services Ltd. and several other cases in which the facts were similar to the facts of this case.
Conclusion:
Before imposing monetary penalty in the present Adjudications Proceedings, it would be pertinent to consider the factors as listed under section 15 J of the aforesaid Act which provide a set of broad guidelines to be taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Officer. The factors listed therein are intended to take care of aggravating circumstances that may lead to imposition of penalty commensurate with the gravity of offence. For instance, if the default has caused disproportionate gain or unfair advantage to the offender or actual loss to the investors then the same should not be lost sight of while imposing penalty. In such circumstances the Adjudicating Officer has no discretion to award a lower penalty than the actual gain made or the actual loss suffered. However, in cases where the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage is not quantifiable or where the amount of loss caused to the investor is not apparent then the Adjudicating Officer has discretion to award penalty as per the facts and circumstances of the case. In brief, the factors listed under section 15J serve as a guide to the Adjudicating Officer in imposition of penalty and the same can not be invoked as a matter of right by the defaulter for a lesser penalty. The bottom line is that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
In the present case, there are no quantifiable figures available on record with respect to the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage derived by CSL nor are there figures or data on record to quantify the loss caused to an investor or group of investors as a result of the default. However, the number of instances found where the registration form for the clients and the member constituent agreements were not available goes to show that CSL had not obtained the requisite documents in a good number of cases. Non-obtaining client agreements and client registration forms violates the spirit behind “Know Your Client” concept to establish the contractual relationship with and identity of the client. Absence of such forms and agreements also makes an audit trail difficult, in case of any inspection or investigation by the regulator. Also initializing serial number for the contract notes on daily basis leaves the possibility of insertion of contract notes at a later day which provides ample scope for manipulation and is not in the interest of both the investors as well as the market.
Hence, the defaults for which penalty is being imposed can not be simply quantified in terms of loss or gain but need to be understood in terms of their regulatory importance. For the sake of clarity, I would like to give a break up of the penalties, charge-wise:
A penalty of Rs.10,000/- shall be commensurate for the violation of the provisions of Section 15F (a) by not initializing the contract notes on a yearly basis. A penalty of Rs.5,000/- for each instance (total 25 cases) where the registration form and the member constituent agreement is not available seems justified in view of the serious nature of the violation. I am satisfied that an aggregate penalty of Rs.1,35,000/- shall be commensurate in the case.
I hereby impose a penalty of Rs.1,35,000/- on M/s. Consortium Finance Ltd. It shall pay this amount of penalty by way of demand draft in favour of SEBI - Penalty remittable to Government of India payable at Mumbai within 45 days of receipt of this order. The said demand draft shall be sent to Deputy General Manager, MIRSD, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Exchange Plaza, Wing II, 4th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051.
(RAJ RANI BHALLA)
(AJUDICATING OFFICER)
DATE: 29.07.05
PLACE: NEW DELHI