Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Order In the matter of Monalisa Infotech Limited

Securities And Exchange Board Of India1 November 2016

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a listed company is under an obligation, by virtue of SEBI's advice and directions issued under section 11 of the SEBI Act, to redress investor complaints, its continued failure to do so, despite repeated advice, is a basis for directions under section 11B. Such failure adversely affects investor confidence in the securities market, so that it is a fit case for restraining the company and its directors from accessing the securities market, and from buying, selling or dealing in securities, until the pending investor grievances are resolved. Where noticees have been given sufficient opportunity to appear and reply to show cause notices, and have chosen not to appear or file any written reply, the authority may decide the matter on the basis of the material on record.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

WTM/RKA/EFD/DRA II/182/2016 BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ORDER UNDER SECTION 11B OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 In respect of Monalisa Infotech Limited its directors, namely, Md. Anjum Khan, Md. Aslam Khan, Mr. Kirit Mahuradas Mehta and Mr. Dilip Keshav Pagare 1. SEBI vide its circular no. CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13, 2012 directed all listed companies to obtain SEBI Complaints Redress System (SCORES) authentication by September 14, 2012 and to take appropriate necessary steps within seven days of receipt of complaints through SCORES, so as to resolve the complaint within thirty days of its receipt. 2. However, certain companies, including Monalisa Infotech Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’) did not obtain SCORES authentication within the time period specified in the aforementioned circular, a public notice was issued on January 13, 2013, advising inter alia the companies to obtain SCORES authentication within seven days from the date of the advertisement, failing which SEBI would be constrained to initiate appropriate enforcement actions.

3. Since, the company did not obtain SCORES authentication and failed to redress five investor grievance, SEBI issued Show Cause Notices (SCNs) dated March 28, 2013 and December 21, 2015 to the company and its directors, namely, Md. Anjum Khan, Md. Aslam Khan, Mr. Kirit Mahuradas Mehta and Mr. Dilip Keshav Pagare (hereinafter referred to as "the noticees") calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable directions including direction to restrain them from accessing the securities market for a specified period should not be passed under section 11B of the SEBI Act. The SCNs returned undelivered. 4. Notice to the effect of issuance of SCNs and granting of opportunity of personal hearing on October 05, 2016 was published in newspaper on September 11, 2016. However, the noticees chose not to appear for the personal hearing on the scheduled date. 5. I note that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the noticees and they are not keen to avail the same. I further note that the noticees have not even filed any written reply/submission In the matter of Monalisa Infotech Limited to the SCNs.

In view of these facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record. 6. I note that as on October 04, 2016, the company had not obtained SCORES authentication and two investor complaints were pending against the company for redressal. 7. In addition to the obligations under the provisions of Companies Act, the company is also under an obligation to redress all investor complaints in terms of the advice/directions of SEBI, in view of the provisions of section 11 of the SEBI Act. However, the company has not shown any tenacity in resolving the investor grievance and in spite of repeated advice of SEBI, the said investor grievances are pending till date. 8. Failure to redress investor grievances, by a listed company adversely affects the confidence of investors in the securities market. In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that it is a fit case to issue appropriate directions under section 11B of the SEBI Act against the noticees as contemplated in the SCNs. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 19 of the SEBI Act read with sections 11 and 11B thereof, hereby restrain and prohibit Monalisa Infotech Limited its directors, namely, Md.

Anjum Khan, Md. Aslam Khan, Mr. Kirit Mahuradas Mehta and Mr. Dilip Keshav Pagare from accessing the securities market and from buying, selling or dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, in whatsoever manner, till the company resolves all the investor grievances pending against it. The aforesaid direction is without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the company and its directors in accordance with law. 9. This Order shall come into force with immediate effect. A copy of this Order shall also be served upon the depositories and stock exchanges for necessary action.

Sd/- Date: November 01, 2016 RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Place: Mumbai WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

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