Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Sebi

Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Khasra No. 238/13, Ambit Education LLP, Gram Thada, Tehsil Tizara, Bhiwadi Alwar, Rajasthan - 301019. ..... 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. Manoj Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Ravishekhar Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Ghosh, Advocate i/b The Law Point for the Respondent.

CORAM : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer Dr. C. K. G. Nair, Member Justice M. T. Joshi, Judicial Member

Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer (Oral) 2

1.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

May 29, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer (hereinafter

referred to as 'AO') of Securities and Exchange Board of India

(hereinafter referred to as 'SEBI') imposing a penalty of Rs. One lac

for not obtaining SEBI Complaints Redressal System (SCORES)

authentication.

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

issued a circular dated June 3, 2011 directing public listed companies

to obtain SCORES authentication within 30 days which was a

platform provided for the investors to make a complaint. The

appellant did not obtain the SCORES authentication and accordingly

a show cause notice dated May 7, 2015 was issued which eventually

culminated into the passing of the impugned order dated May 29,

2020.

3. The grievance of the appellant is, that there was a dispute in

the management and based on the directions given by BIFR, the

management changed and the present management took over. It was

urged that on account of the mismanagement by the previous regime

the company failed to obtain SCORES authentication and, therefore,

no penalty should be imposed on the present management. It was 3

also urged that the impugned order was passed on May 29, 2020 and

adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided as it was

impossible for the appellant to appear in the midst of lockdown in

Mumbai. It was, thus, urged that the impugned order should be set

aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

contended that there is a delay in filing the appeal and the appeal is

not maintainable since no application for condoning the delay has

been filed. It was urged that the impugned order was served through

an e-mail immediately after passing of the impugned order dated

May 29, 2020 and it is incorrect to state that the impugned order was

received by the appellant on September 8, 2020. It was also urged

that an e-mail was sent on March 19, 2020 indicating that the appeal

would be heard on May 27, 2020. Inspite of receiving the e-mail the

appellant failed to appear and, therefore, it cannot be said that

reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided.

5. The fact that the impugned order was received through e-mail

has not been denied and, therefore, there is a delay in filing the

present appeal. No application for condoning the delay has been 4

filed. However, without dwelling on this aspect of the matter, we

find that even on merits, the appellant is not entitled for any relief.

6. On a query raised by us the learned counsel for the appellant

intimated that the new management took charge in the year 2015.

We find that the present regime also took no efforts to obtain the

SCORES authentication. Nothing has been said that the appellant

was unaware of the circular or was not aware of the show cause

notice. Thus, even though the previous regime may not have

obtained SCORES authentication, it was still incumbent upon the

present regime to comply with the circular of SEBI with regard to

obtaining SCORES authentication. Since the same was not done

which is admitted by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the

penalty of Rs. 1 lac, which is minimum, does not suffer from any

error of law.

7. The appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. The present matter was heard through video conference due to

Covid-19 pandemic. At this stage it is not possible to sign a copy of

this order nor a certified copy of this order could be issued by the

Registry. In these circumstances, this order will be digitally signed 5

by the Presiding Officer on behalf of the bench and all concerned

parties are directed to act on the digitally signed copy of this order.

Parties will act on production of a digitally signed copy sent by fax

and/or email.

TARUN Digitally signed by TARUN AGARWAL DN: c=IN, o=PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT UTTAR PRADESH, postalCode=221505, st=Uttar Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=30fcf68685192bbc53e6ff1608a83fb3881de7ac2ab7954

AGARWAL d509c85ed6e0f7c41, serialNumber=095f8b286bb0b1cd07ff676611f4f5e7999727d404 aa38ca422f9d3529bdb8a3, cn=TARUN AGARWAL Date: 2020.11.02 11:11:16 +05'30'

Justice Tarun Agarwala Presiding Officer

Dr. C. K. G. Nair Member

Justice M. T. Joshi Judicial Member 29.10.2020 PTM