In the matter of Vipras Corporation Ltd.

BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Misc. Application No.13 of 2015 And Appeal No.13 of 2015 Date of decision : 19/02/2015 Vipras Corporation Ltd. Village ‐ Niphan, Savroli Kharpada Road, Khopoli, Dist. Raigad, Pin – 410 203. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, C‐4A, G‐Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Appellant … Respondent Mr. Kirit Damania, Authorized Representative for the Appellant. Mr. Yogesh Chande, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : Justice J.P. Devadhar, Presiding Officer A. S. Lamba, Member Per : Justice J.P. Devadhar (Oral) Misc. Application No.13 of 2015 By this Misc. Application, Appellant seeks condonation of 91 days delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal No.13 of 2015 1. This appeal is filed to challenge Order dated 1st August, 2014 whereby the Adjudicating Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has -2-
imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 on the Appellant under Section 15A(a) of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act” for short). 2. On perusal of the impugned Order, it is seen that penalty of Rs.1,00,000/‐ is imposed upon the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant apart from not redressing the investor grievances, had failed to apply for and obtain SCORES authentication and failed to submit action‐taken report on the investors’ grievances in spite of letter addressed by SEBI on 15th February, 2013 and in spite of issuing a circular to that effect on April 17, 2013. 3. The representative of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant‐
company is a sick company and is closed since last 10 years. The representative of the Appellant further submitted that the delay in obtaining the SCORES authentication was unintentional and was mainly due to the fact that the Appellant‐company was not functioning and there were no employees in the Appellant‐company. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the excessive and unreasonable penalty imposed upon the Appellant be quashed and set aside. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant has failed to apply and obtain the SCORES authentication within the time stipulated in the letter addressed by SEBI on 15th February, 2013. It is contended by the representative of the complainant that SCORES authentication was obtained sometime in December, 2013. For the delay in disobeying the directions of SEBI, penalty imposable is Rs. One lac per day subject to the limit of Rs.One Crore. In the present case, penalty at the rate of Rs.One lac per day would work out to more than Rs.One crore. As against the penalty of Rs.One crore -3-
imposable, the Adjudicating Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/‐ which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. Fact that during the relevant period the company was not operational cannot be a ground for the Appellant to disobey the directions of SEBI in applying and obtaining SCORES authentication. 5. In the circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/‐ Justice J.P. Devadhar Presiding Officer 19/02/2015 Prepared & compared by‐ddg Sd/‐ A.S. Lamba Member