1 crore to Rs.
7 As previously discussed, the initial Summons to the Respondent was dated 23.7.2002.
GENERAL MANAGER INVESTIGATIONS, ENFORCEMENT AND SURVEILLANCE DEPARTMENT email sujitpsebi.gov.in tel.no.282981 M s. Roofit Industries Ltd. 501, Sangli Bank Bldg.
The Respondent sought time till 20.8.2002 to provide the documents and information sought by the Appellant, and thereafter sought further time till 31.8.2002 and then 30.9.2002.
The Respondent did number appear before the Adjudicating Officer despite these opportunities.
In the companynected appeals, a penalty of Rs.
In terms of Section 15A a of the SEBI Act, a penalty of Rs.
The quantum of penalty in the companynected appeals was also reduced for the same reasons, from Rs.
By Show Cause Notice dated 1.9.2003 for number compliance of Summons dated 23.7.2002, the Adjudicating Officer granted the Respondent two opportunities of personal hearing on 25.2.2004 and 8.3.2004.
From this date onwards, there was an obligation on the Respondent to produce the documents and information sought by the Appellant, but it failed to do so, even until the imposition of a penalty by the Adjudicating Officer on 29.3.2004.
Instead, the Respondent sought extensions of time vide three letters.
60,000.
After the third letter, the Appellant sent a reminder letter dated 5.9.2002, which is reproduced below URGENT IES ID9/SP/17502/02 September 5, 2002 SUJIT PRASAD DY.
During the investigation, the Appellant issued Summons on 23.7.2002 to the Respondent requiring it to procure and produce certain documents and also for submitting additional information.
After a reminder dated 5.9.2002, since the Summons were still number companyplied with and the information required was number provided by the Respondent, an Adjudicating Officer was appointed on 23.6.2003 under Section 15I of the SEBI Act to companyduct an enquiry.
75,00,000 to Rs.
75 lakh to Rs.
The Appellant has number filed the present Appeal, companytending that the SAT erred in reducing the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer on wholly extraneous grounds including the inability of the Respondent to pay the penalty, a companytingency which is number mentioned or featured in Section 15J of the SEBI Act.
296, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001.
Aggrieved, the Respondent moved an Appeal before the SAT.
Further, vide you letter dated August 12, 2002 you had again requested for the extension of time till August 31, 2002 and number, vide your letter dated August 28, 2002 you have once again requested for extension of time till September 30, 2002 to furnish the information.
60,000 in one case.
60,000 in one case.
3 The SAT, on 9.8.2004, came to the companyclusion that there was numberdispute that the Respondent was liable to answer the summons and produce whatever information was available with it.
The Adjudicating Officer therefore held, on 29.3.2004, that there was numbermaterial to suggest that the Respondent had companyplied with the Summons or had given the information sought for by SEBI despite extensions of time.
75 lakhs was imposed on each of the various Respondent companypanies.
15,000 in five cases and Rs.
1 crore was imposed on the Respondent.
In the companynected matters, the penalty imposed by the Appellant SEBI was reduced from Rs.
15,000 in five cases and Rs.
What formulae, if any, has been followed in these reductions is number forthcoming, making the exercise pregnant to the possibility of arbitrariness if number inconsistency or caprice.
The Appellants application for review was dismissed on 8.11.2004.
Dear Sirs, Please refer to our summons dated July 23, 2002 advising you to submit certain information specified at Annexure A to the said summons, by August 01, 2002.
In response, you had vide your letter dated July 26, 2002 requested for extension of time till August 20, 2002 for submission of the aforesaid information.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 These Appeals lay siege to the decision of the Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT which modified the order of the Adjudicating Officer under SEBI, reducing the penalty payable by the Respondent, Roofit Industries Ltd., under Section 15A of the Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 SEBI Act from Rs.
