Ms. Shivani Thakur vs Sebi

Ms. Shivani Thakur C-101, GAIL Society, Plot No.9, Sector 56, Gurugram, Haryana 122011. ...Appellant

Versus

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

Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate with Mr. Akshay Petkar and Mr. Pranav Shah, Advocates i/b. Akshay Petkar for the Appellant.

Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Deepti Mohan, Ms. Hubab Sayyed, Mr. Niket Dalal and Ms. Purvi Jain, Advocates i/b. Vidhii Partners 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 30th August, 2022 passed by the Whole Time

Member (hereinafter referred to as the 'WTM')

wherein the appellant along with two other noticees

have been directed to refund the money received from

the investors jointly and severally.

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

is that a show cause notice dated 31st July, 2021 was

issued to the appellant and two other noticees who were

all named as the proprietors of M/s. RNS Global

Capital at different point of time and were found to be

engaged in investment advisory services without

obtaining a certificate of registration from Securities

and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as

'SEBI') in violation of the provisions of Section 12(1)

of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act,

1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI Act') and

Regulation 3(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board

of India (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 3

(hereinafter referred to as 'Investment Advisers

Regulations').

3. The WTM after considering the replies of the two

other noticees and the material evidence on record

came to the conclusion that three accounts were opened

in the name of the Company at different point of time

in which the appellant was shown as a proprietor. The

appellant received money in the account for investment

advisory services given by the said Company. The

WTM further found that the investment advisory

services that was being carried out by the Company

without being registered under the Investment Advisers

Regulations and, consequently, directed that the

appellant alongwith the other noticees were liable to

refund the money of the investors jointly and severally.

4. We have heard Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate assisted

by Mr. Akshay Petkar and Mr. Pranav Shah, Advocates

for the appellant and Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate assisted

by Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Deepti Mohan, Ms. Hubab 4

Sayyed, Mr. Niket Dalal and Ms. Purvi Jain, Advocates

for the Respondent.

5. It was urged that the impugned order insofar as the

appellant was concerned was passed ex-parte. The

show cause notice was not served nor was an

opportunity of hearing provided. It was further urged

that the appellant was an employee in the Company

known as M/s. RNS Global Capital which was run by

other noticee Mr. Rohit Soni and that on his advice her

bank account was used for depositing the fees received

by the Company. It was urged that the master mind

was Mr. Rohit Soni and that she was only an employee

whose account was being used for nefarious activities.

6. Insofar as service is concerned, we find that the

appellant was duly served with the show cause notice

which is not disputed. Further, by way of abundant

precaution the respondent also made a publication

which is also not disputed. Consequently, we are 5

satisfied that the appellant was duly served with a show

cause notice but chose not to appear.

7. Before the WTM, the other two noticees Mr. Rohit

Soni and Mr. Lakhan Chouhan both contended that the

appellant Ms. Shivani Thakur was the mastermind and

that she was operating the accounts of the Company.

The contention of the appellant that Mr. Rohit Soni was

infact running the show and that she was only an

employee is not borne out from any evidence shown

before us. Therefore, the contention cannot be

accepted. A perusal of the memo of appeal and the

records clearly indicates that the fee received by the

Company was being deposited in her account. The

appellant also admits that the Company was also being

run without obtaining required registration under the

Investment Advisers Regulations.

8. We also find that Mr. Lakhan Chouhan and Mr.

Rohit Soni had filed appeal nos.931 of 2022 and 932 of 6

2022 which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 24th

November, 2022.

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

the order of the WTM. The appeal fails and is

dismissed.

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 RAJALAK Digitally by signed

SHMI RAJALAKSHMI HARISH NAIR HARISH Date:

4.1.2023 NAIR 2023.01.13 16:28:57 +05'30'

RHN