BEFORE THE
SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision : 10.04.2019
Appeal No. 353 of 2017
BTS Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.
M S Complex, First Floor,
Plot No. 8, Sastri Nagar,
Nr. 200 Feet Road RTO
Kolathur, Chennai 600 099.
…Appellant
Versus
The Adjudicating Officer,
Securities and Exchange Board of India.
SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
…Respondent
Mr. Jayesh Ahire, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Chirag Bhavsar, Advocate
i/b MDP & Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Justice M.T. Joshi, Judicial Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.
The appellant is a Share Transfer Agent. SEBI conducted
the inspection of the books of accounts / records and documents.
In the first inspection no irregularities were found. However, in
2
the second inspection various irregularities were found which
resulted in the issuance of show cause notice and on the basis of
ten violations, the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI passed an order
imposing a penalty of Rs. Three lakhs under Section 15B and
15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992. The appellant being aggrieved has
filed the present appeal.
2.
The contention made by the appellant is, that the
irregularities so indicated in the second inspection report were
basically technical which were largely removed and was
reflected in the third inspection report and consequently the
imposition of penalty was harsh and excessive. It was contended
that at best the order of penalty should be converted into a
warning as has been held by this Tribunal in Porecha Global
Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. Adjudicating Officer, SEBI decided on
April 18, 2005.
3.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the impugned order we find that the appellant
did commit the violations of various regulations and directions
contained in the circulars though it was largely redressed by the
appellant as has been found in the third inspection report.
However, the fact remains that the appellant had contravened
various provisions of the securities laws even though it may be
3
technical in nature. Considering the fact that the appellant had
largely remedied the situation, we are of the opinion that a
minimum penalty should have been imposed upon the appellant
considering the factors which are stipulated under Section 15J
of the SEBI Act.
4.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, the appeal is partly
allowed. The penalty is reduced from ` 3,00,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakh Only) to ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)
which will be paid within four weeks from today.
Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C.K.G. Nair
Member
Sd/Justice M.T. Joshi
Judicial Member
10.04.2019
Prepared and compared by:msb