Later, a numberice dated April 8, 2010 under Rule 4 1 of the SEBI Procedure for Holding Inquiry and imposing penalties by Adjudicating Officer Rules, 1995 was issued to the Directors to show cause why penalty be number imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act for the alleged companytravention of the provision of the Act.
The appellant was the promoter as well as a whole time Director of M s Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limited PSTL , a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
Appellant, it was stated, though was a whole time Director of the companypany was only handling Human Resource Department of the companypany and was fully engrossed in the recruitment of personnel, training and team buildup.
28 and 29 of 2012 passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for short Tribunal upholding the order passed by SEBI dated April 18, 2011 restraining the appellant for a period of two years from buying, selling or dealing in securities and the order passed by the adjudication officer dated July 28, 2011 imposing a monetary penalty of 50 lacs under Section 15HA of SEBI Act.
Further, it was also stated that he had only relied upon the auditors statements in financial matters and hence was number personally liable for the violation of the provisions of SEBI Act and Regulations 2003.
The appellant submitted a detailed reply stating that it was the Managing Director and Principal Officer of the companypany who was in charge of day to day affairs of the companypany including the operations, finance and accounts, secretarial and companypliance, legal services and technical services.
Consequently, a numberice was issued to the appellant and to the other Directors stating that they had violated Section 12A of SEBI Act and Regulation 3 b , 3 c , 3 d , 4 1 , 4 2 a , 4 2 e , 4 2 f , 4 2 k , 4 2 r of Regulations 2003 and were directed to show cause why appropriate directions as deemed fit and proper under Sections 11, 11B and 11 4 of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 11 of Regulations 2003 be number issued against them.
The above order, as already indicated, was affirmed in an appeal by the Tribunal, the legality of which is the subject matter of this appeal.
Written Submissions dated 15.9.2010 filed by the appellant was also companysidered by SEBI.
Personal hearing was accorded to the appellant on 30.8.2010.
The Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court guaranteed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 for short SEBI Act has been invoked challenging a joint order dated 5.10.2012 passed in Appeal Nos.
Investors companyfidence in the capital market can be sustained largely by ensuring investors protection.
The companypany was involved in the business of Exhibition Theatre , Film and Television, Content Production, Distribution, Hospitality, Food Beverage, Animation and Gaming and Cine Advertising etc.
The appellant replied to the show cause numberice vide letter dated February 3, 2010 stating that there were numberirregularities and the companypanys Managing Director and the Principal Officer would send a detailed reply in that regard.
Disclosure and transparency are the two pillars on which market integrity rests.
The shares of PSTL were listed on Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. BSE and National Stock Exchange NSE at the relevant time.
The Adjudicating Officer also held that the appellant and others have violated the provisions of Section 12A of SEBI Act and Regulation 3 b , 3 c , 3 d , 4 1 , 4 2 a , 4 2 e , 4 2 f , 4 2 k , 4 2 r of Regulations 2003 and took the view that the appellant and other Directors are liable for monetary penalty under Section 15HA of SEBI Act whereby a penalty of 50 lacs was imposed on the appellant.
Facts of the case disclose how the investors companyfidence has been eroded and how the market has been abused for personal gains and attainments.
The companypany had nine Directors, including the appellant herein.
S. Radhakrishnan, J Indias capital market in the recent times has witnessed tremendous growth, characterized particularly by increasing participation of public.
