Mr. Manish Lalwani vs Sebi
- CitationAppeal No.310 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant, having admittedly carried on investment advisory services without registration under Regulation 3 of the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, cannot resist a finding of contravention of that requirement; an admitted failure to obtain the prescribed registration is sufficient to sustain the finding that the appellant acted without a certificate of registration, and the appeal fails on that ground. Where a finding of unregistered investment advisory activity is admitted, a contention that the quantum of amounts to be refunded is erroneous does not disturb the liability finding; the quantum is a separate question which the Tribunal may remit to the adjudicating authority for fresh determination on proof of fees actually collected, without the appellant thereby obtaining any relief from the underlying contravention.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Decision: 13.4.2023
Appeal No.310 of 2023
Mr. Manish Lalwani 345, Dwarkapuri, in front of Dr. KB Rajpal, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 452001. ...Appellant
Versus
Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, BKC, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051, Maharashtra. ...Respondent
Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate with Ms. Samreen Fatima and Mr. Sumit Yadav, Advocates i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent.
CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member
Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2
1.
The present appeal has been filed against the order
dated 18th January, 2023 passed by the Whole Time
Member ('WTM' for short) holding that the appellant
was engaged in the Investment Advisory Services
without obtaining a certificate of registration under
Regulation 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of
India (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013.
2. Admittedly the appellant was carrying on the
investment advisory services without obtaining
registration under Regulation 3 of the Investment
Advisory Regulations and, therefore, to that extent the
order of the WTM does not suffer from any error of
law.
3. It was urged that the amount directed to be refunded
by the WTM is erroneous. In this regard, certain
documents have been filed by the appellants to show
that the amount collected from the clients towards 3
advisory services was far less than what has been
depicted in the impugned order.
4. In view of the admitted fact that the appellant was
carrying on Investment Advisory Services without
getting itself registered under Regulation 3 of the
Investment Advisory Regulations the appeal fails and is
dismissed.
5. Considering the aforesaid, while dismissing off the
appeal we direct the WTM to reconsider the quantum to
be refunded by the appellant. We direct the appellant
to file an appropriate application on an affidavit within
three weeks from today submitting proof of the fees
collected from the clients which is required to be
refunded as per the impugned order. Such application
shall be considered by the WTM and appropriate order
shall be passed within four weeks thereafter.
6. This order will be digitally signed by the Private
Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned 4
parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy
of this order. Certified copy of this order is also
available from the Registry on payment of usual
charges.
Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer
Ms. Meera Swarup Technical Member RAJALAKS Digitally signed by HMI RAJALAKSHMI HARISH HARISH NAIR Date: 2023.04.19
13.4.2023 NAIR 15:01:18 +05'30'
RHN
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free