Mr. Yogendra Singh vs Sebi

Order Reserved on : 23.03.2023

Date of Decision : 28.03.2023

Appeal No. 275 of 2023

Mr. Yogendra Singh Plot No. 39, Ras Township, Talawali Chanda, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 453 771. .....Appellant

Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C-4A, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ... Respondent

Mr. Abhishek Mishra, CS for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Ms. Shefali Shankar, Ms. Rasika Ghate, Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Advocates i/b. MDP & Partners for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Ms. Meera Swarup, Technical Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

January 2, 2023 passed by the Whole Time Member ('WTM'

for short) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India 2

('SEBI' for short) directing the appellant and other noticees to

refund the amount collected from the investors within three

months in respect of its unregistered investment advisory

activities and were further restrained the appellant from

buying, selling or otherwise dealing in the securities market

for a period of three years or till the expiry of three years from

the date of refund of the amount to the investors.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is,

that the investigation was started by SEBI on the basis of the

complaint received by Equity 99. Upon examination, it was

found that the appellant and another noticee were found to be

carrying out investment advisory activities without obtaining

a certificate of registration and allegedly using the name of

Equity 99 which was registered with SEBI.

3. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated June 4, 2021

was issued alleging that the appellant and other noticees were

carrying out investment advisory activities without obtaining

a certificate of registration in violation of the provisions of

Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 3(1) of

the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013

('Investment Advisers Regulations' for short). 3

4. After considering their replies and the material evidence

on record the WTM found that appellant along with noticee

no. 2 and were carrying on investment advisory services. The

WTM found that the said investment advisory services was

being carried out without obtaining registration under the

Investment Advisers Regulations.

5. We have heard Shri Abhishek Mishra, CS and

Mr. Sumit Rai, the learned counsel assisted by Shri

Ravishekhar Pandey, Ms. Shefali Shankar, Ms. Rasika Ghate,

Shri Nishit Dhruva, the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The only submission made by the appellant was that he

was not carrying out any investment advisory services and

that he had taken a franchisee from Mr. Mahendra Seekarwar

who was a partner in Equity 99. The WTM found that there

was a partnership firm was which named as Equity 99 which

was also registered with SEBI and that the appellant had

opened a bank account in the same name namely Equity 99

but as a proprietorship firm. The account opening form in the

bank also indicated that the appellant was the proprietor of

Equity 99. The documents used for opening the said account

was the PAN and Aadhaar card of Mr. Yogendra Singh. The 4

appellant also got its firm registered under the Shop and

Establishment Act.

7. We also find that the contention of the appellant that he

had entered into a partnership agreement with the partner of

Equity 99 along with Anshul Rathore who is noticee no. 2 is

not based on any cogent evidence. In the absence of any

document the contention of the appellant cannot be taken into

consideration.

8. In this regard we have perused the impugned order and

we find that the WTM had dwelt in length in coming to a

conclusion that appellant was carrying on business which was

in the nature of investment advisory services. The WTM

found that the website of the appellant clearly indicated that

they were projecting stock tips under various categories and

were offering prospective investors, various subscription

packages upon charging different amount for different

services. The WTM accordingly came to a conclusion that the

appellant was offering tips and that such recommendations

were in the nature of investment advisory services without

taking a registration certificate under the relevant regulations. 5

9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the

impugned order and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private

Secretary on behalf of the bench and all concerned 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 28.03.2023 MADHUKAR Digitally signed by MADHUKAR SHAMRAO SHAMRAO BHALBAR

msb BHALBAR Date: 2023.03.28 16:47:04 +05'30'