w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



National Highway Authority of India v/s Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan


Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SECURITIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = L99999TN1984PLC075902

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SECURITIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = L99999TN1984PLC016521

Company & Directors' Information:- N D A SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1992PLC050366

Company & Directors' Information:- K K SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060238

Company & Directors' Information:- M K SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L67120TG1994PLC018455

Company & Directors' Information:- S B SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1996PTC098105

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC063412

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120GJ1994PLC023477

Company & Directors' Information:- W & F SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1997PTC086188

Company & Directors' Information:- S J SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65923GJ1995PLC025086

Company & Directors' Information:- R R SECURITIES LTD [Active] CIN = L67910GJ1993PLC020169

Company & Directors' Information:- K R SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059298

Company & Directors' Information:- B. N. SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1994PLC110809

Company & Directors' Information:- D U SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060800

Company & Directors' Information:- B M SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120AP1994PLC018732

Company & Directors' Information:- H J SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH1998PTC117076

Company & Directors' Information:- J V S SECURITIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC066278

Company & Directors' Information:- D H SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH2000PTC123636

Company & Directors' Information:- N E C C SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC044908

Company & Directors' Information:- V G SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TG1995PLC020179

Company & Directors' Information:- N B S SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U65921WB1996PTC079346

Company & Directors' Information:- B J SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB2000PTC092061

Company & Directors' Information:- L F C SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH2004PTC149792

Company & Directors' Information:- A N SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999WB1997PTC084741

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND H SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH1974PTC017380

Company & Directors' Information:- A G SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921DL1993PTC052453

Company & Directors' Information:- M N SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1999PTC102464

Company & Directors' Information:- B P SECURITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1996PTC077411

Company & Directors' Information:- I M SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1996PTC077356

Company & Directors' Information:- V H SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC072918

Company & Directors' Information:- G S SECURITIES LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1995PLC073255

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064716

Company & Directors' Information:- L N SECURITIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1992PTC057302

Company & Directors' Information:- M D SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007928

Company & Directors' Information:- J B SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC066637

Company & Directors' Information:- E-2 SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921DL1991PTC044031

Company & Directors' Information:- N K SECURITIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120AS1995PTC004333

Company & Directors' Information:- P K J SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC044706

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND U SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120GJ1995PTC026131

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. L SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120PB1995PLC016810

Company & Directors' Information:- J M SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U67120MH1989PTC050648

Company & Directors' Information:- R G SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051476

Company & Directors' Information:- M M SECURITIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74920BR1995PLC006716

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL SECURITIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120GJ1994PTC023203

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND F SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL1993PTC054557

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1917PLC002781

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB2008PTC131387

Company & Directors' Information:- A R S SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055638

Company & Directors' Information:- J K BOARD PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U20101DL1998PTC094877

Company & Directors' Information:- G V SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120PB1996PLC017506

Company & Directors' Information:- P G SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120RJ1995PTC009985

Company & Directors' Information:- C & S SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120TN1994PTC028091

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND P SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65910MH1995PLC092715

Company & Directors' Information:- A P S SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC065809

Company & Directors' Information:- A J M SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KL1997PTC011202

Company & Directors' Information:- A & B SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1995PTC032716

Company & Directors' Information:- S V SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U08032BR1995PTC006339

Company & Directors' Information:- G R K SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65923WB1997PTC082582

Company & Directors' Information:- P N SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070358

Company & Directors' Information:- G. H. SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U67120UP1995PTC018049

Company & Directors' Information:- S K B SECURITIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999WB1996PLC082316

Company & Directors' Information:- P K D SECURITIES LTD. [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PLC004240

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KL1998PTC012015

Company & Directors' Information:- T K SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120PB1995PTC016238

Company & Directors' Information:- A M SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120KL1997PTC011182

Company & Directors' Information:- P K SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061444

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SECURITIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1997PTC005177

Company & Directors' Information:- J J SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993TN1994PLC029598

Company & Directors' Information:- G J SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1998PTC094843

Company & Directors' Information:- P H SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120PB1996PTC018608

Company & Directors' Information:- B L K SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1997PTC087427

Company & Directors' Information:- J D V SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190UP2014PTC067394

Company & Directors' Information:- B H SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL2003PTC120184

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900HR2012PTC046023

Company & Directors' Information:- F M SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KL2009PTC024302

Company & Directors' Information:- U S SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL2000PTC104027

Company & Directors' Information:- N I SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL2000PTC105518

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120DL2000PTC105232

Company & Directors' Information:- N R. SECURITIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67120CH1995PLC015991

Company & Directors' Information:- K H SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120MH2001PTC134169

Company & Directors' Information:- G. N. SECURITIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140BR2011PLC017311

Company & Directors' Information:- J N SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120TN1999PTC043842

Company & Directors' Information:- R L F SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069597

Company & Directors' Information:- A P SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC065651

Company & Directors' Information:- M G SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC058074

Company & Directors' Information:- C S SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120KL1998PTC012664

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

Company & Directors' Information:- M M SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066511

Company & Directors' Information:- N G SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071199

Company & Directors' Information:- P D K SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120RJ1995PTC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- S V SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993DL1993PTC051885

Company & Directors' Information:- M V SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120PB1996PTC018391

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K .SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67120TN2007PTC065324

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990TG2000PTC033675

    Appeal No. 232 of 2020

    Decided On, 27 August 2020

    At, SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA
    By, PRESIDING OFFICER
    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. C.K.G. NAIR
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.T. JOSHI
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Rajesh Ranjan, Neeraj Matta, Advocates. For the Respondent: Abhiraj Arora, Rashi Dalmia, Advocates i/b. M/s. ELP.



Judgment Text


Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the impugned order dated 26th May, 2020 passed by the Adjudicating Officer imposing a penalty of Rs.7 lakhs for violation of Regulation 52(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LODR Regulations, 2015’) namely, that there was a delay in filing the half yearly financial results for the period ending 30th September, 2018 and 31st March, 2019 within 45 days from the end of the half financial year.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal is, that the Appellant is an autonomous body set up by the Parliament under an Act known as National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NHAI Act’) for the purpose of development, maintenance and management of national highways. This body which is not a Company as defined under the Companies Act is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange in pursuance of a Listing Agreement for Debt Securities dated 7th February, 2012 and, therefore, is subject to the provisions of the LODR Regulations, 2015. The requirement under Regulation 52(1) of the LODR Regulations, 2015 is to file the unaudited half yearly financial results within 45 days from the end of the half financial year.

3. Since the unaudited financial results ending 30th September, 2018 and 31st March, 2019 could not be filed within the stipulated period on account of circumstances which could not be foreseen, the Appellant made a request by letters dated 31st May, 2019 and 24th June, 2019 for extension of the period. This application was apparently made under Regulation 102 of the LODR Regulations, 2015 which was accompanied by a fee of Rs.1 lakh.

4. Based on the aforesaid request, Respondent sought certain clarifications which was given by the Appellant contending that the Board of National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘NHAI’) consists of Chairman, five full time Members and five part time Members appointed by the Government of India. These part time Members includes the CEO of Niti Aoyog, Secretary (Expenditure), Ministry of Finance, Secretary of Road Transport and Highways and D G (RD)/SS, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and, therefore, at times it becomes unavoidable to ensure that all the Members are present to approve the financial results. It was also clarified that the Appellant has more than 200 accounting units spread across the country and consolidation of the accounts requires a lot of coordination and at times due to unavoidable reasons the accounts could not be placed in the meeting. It was also stated that under Regulation 4(1) of National Highways Authority of India (Transaction of Business) Regulations, 1997 the meeting of the Board could be considered legal and valid only if it is approved by two-third of the Members.

5. It was urged that in view of this unforeseen circumstances, the delay in filing the unaudited financial results be condoned.

6. Inspite of the clarification given, the Respondent by order dated 7th October, 2019 declined to accept the request for extension of time for filing the unaudited financial results for the half year ending 31st March, 2019 but acceded to the request for filing the audited financial results for the financial year 2018-19 to be filed by 31st March, 2019.

7. Thereafter, the Appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 15th January, 2020 to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for non-compliance of Regulation 52 of the LODR Regulations, 2015. The Appellant submitted its reply contending that due to unforeseen circumstances as stated aforesaid the Appellant could not file the unaudited financial results within the stipulated period and submitted that in the given circumstances for reasons which were beyond their control the delay be condoned and no penalty should be imposed.

8. The Adjudicating Officer after considering all aspects of the matter passed the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.7 lakhs. The Adjudicating Officer held that there was repeated failure on the part of the Appellant in not filing the returns on seven occasions from financial year 2015-2016 to financial year 2018-2019. The Adjudicating Officer further held that the contention of the Appellant that the procedural delay cannot be taken as a mitigating factor for relaxation of the period for filing the unaudited financial results. Further, there is no provision for providing relaxation under Regulation 52. The Adjudicating Officer held that if an act is required to be done in a particular manner and within a particular period then the same should be done in that particular manner and time and that there cannot be any deviation. The Appellant being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present appeal.

9. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate assisted by Mr. Neeraj Matta, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Abhiraj Arora, Advocate assisted by Ms. Rashi Dalmia, Advocate for the Respondent through video conferencing.

10. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that in view of Section 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SEBI Act’) no proceedings could have been initiated for imposing penalty under Section 15A of the SEBI Act unless and until the Officers in default were identified and prosecuted under Section 27 of the Act. It was also urged that there were genuine circumstances beyond the control of the Officers of the Appellant in as much as the financial results were prepared but the same could not be approved on account of lack of quorum in the meeting of the Board of Appellate authority. It was urged that in view of Regulation 4 of National Highways Authority of India (Transaction of Business) Regulations, 1997 no meeting of the Board would be legal or valid unless it was approved by two-third of the members. It was contended that on account of composition of the Board which comprises of various dignitaries it becomes difficult to have the minimum quorum which in turn delayed the approval of the unaudited financial results by the board. It was, thus, urged that there were extenuating circumstances which should have been taken into consideration by the Respondent. It was also urged that an application by deposit of requisite fees was filed under Regulation 102 of the LODR Regulations, 2015 and circumstances were indicated giving reasons for the delay in filing the returns. The said application was rejected mechanically by the Respondent without giving any reason which was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that the factors contemplated under Section 15J of the SEBI Act was not taken into consideration while imposing the penalty.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the violation under Section 52 of the LODR Regulations is admitted by the Appellant. It was urged that there is no relaxation under Regulation 52 and, therefore, penalty was rightly imposed. The learned counsel further urged that a procedure has been provided under Regulation 52 of the LODR Regulations to file the unaudited financial results within 45 days from the end of the half financial year which in the instant case was not done and, therefore, penalty became automatically leviable. It was urged that on account of the seven instances of violation, a sum of Rs.7 lakhs has been imposed which is just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and, in order to appreciate the submissions, it would be appropriate to take a look at the provisions of Regulation 52(1) and 102 of the LODR Regulations which are extracted hereunder:-

Regulation 52(1)

“Financial Results.

52(1) The listed entity shall prepare and submit unaudited or audited financial results on a half yearly basis in the format as specified by the Board within forty five days from the end of the half year to the recognised stock exchange(s).”

Regulation 102

“ Power to relax strict enforcement of the regulations.

102.The Board may in the interest of investors and securities market and for the development of the securities market, relax the strict enforcement of any requirement of these regulations, if the Board is satisfied that:

(a) any provision of Act(s), Rule(s), regulation(s) under which the listed entity is established or is governed by, is required to be given precedence to; or

(b) the requirement may cause undue hardship to investors; or

(c) the disclosure requirement is not relevant for a particular industry or class of listed entities; or

(d) the requirement is technical in nature; or

(e) the non-compliance is caused due to factors affecting a class of entities but being beyond the control of the entities.”

13. From a perusal of Regulation 52 it is clear that a listed entity is required to prepare and submit the unaudited financial results on a half yearly basis within 45 days from the end of the half year to the recognized stock exchange.

14. Admittedly, in the instant case the unaudited half yearly financial results were not filed within the stipulated period. As a result, penalty became leviable under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act which is extracted hereunder:-

“15A. Penalty for failure to furnish information, return, etc.-

If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder,-

(a) ………………

(b) to file any return or furnish any information, books or other documents within the time specified therefor in the regulations, fails to file return or furnish the same within the time specified therefor in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty of one lakh rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one crore rupees, whichever is less;”

15. Thus, on account of a default of Regulation 52 penalty could be imposed under Section 15A of the SEBI Act.

16. The contention of the Appellant that Section 27 of SEBI Act should have been invoked as the offence, if any, was carried out by the Company and, therefore, it was the onerous duty of the Respondent to identify the Officer in default and prosecute them thereafter. In our view, the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant is patently erroneous. Prosecution under Section 27 of the SEBI Act can be initiated against the Company and its Directors/Officers and persons responsible for the default but penalty proceedings can be initiated under Section 15A for non-filing of the financial results without taking taking recourse to Sec. 27 of the Act.

17. The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the factors enumerated under Section 15J of the SEBI Act has not been taken into consideration while imposing penalty is patently erroneous. In the first instance, we find that the Adjudicating Officer has taken into consideration the factors mentioned under Section 15J while imposing the penalty of Rs.7 lakhs. We may however note that the Supreme Court in Adjudicating Officer, SEBI vs. Bhavesh Pabari, (2019) 5 SCC 90 held that the provisions of Section 15J may not apply in adjudication proceedings involving penalty under Section 15A while determining the quantum of penalty. For facility paragraph 10 in the matter of Bhavesh Pabari (supra) is extracted hereunder:

“10. Therefore, to understand the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-J to be exhaustive and admitting of no exception or vesting any discretion in the adjudicating officer would be virtually to admit/concede that in adjudications involving penalties under Sections 15-A, 15-B and 15-C, Section 15-J will have no application. Such a result could not have been intended by the legislature. We, therefore, hold and take the view that conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-J are not exhaustive and in the given facts of a case, there can be circumstances beyond those enumerated by clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 15-J which can be taken note of by the adjudicating officer while determining the quantum of penalty.”

18. In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that for violation of Regulation the authority of SEBI can impose penalty under the SEBI Act. However, there is an exception to the rule and exemption can be granted by extending the time to comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations. In this regard, Regulation 102 of the LODR Regulations gives power to the Board to relax the strict enforcement of the Regulations. Regulation 102(1)(e) stipulates that one of the mitigating circumstances for relaxation could be caused due to a factor which is beyond the control of the entity.

19. In the instant case, the Appellant is governed by a plethora of statutory rules over and above the rigor of the SEBI provisions including LODR Regulations, 2015 and is consequently heavily burdened with compliance requirements under the SEBI Act and LODR Regulations apart from the statutory requirement under the NHAI Act. The Appellant is governed under the NHAI Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder which warrants involvement of a large number of members who are highly ranked officials who are appointed by the Government of India who simultaneously discharge their duties under various other portfolios. It thus becomes slightly tedious and cumbersome to ensure that all the members of the Board meeting come together under one roof and get the audited or unaudited financial results approved before the stipulated period. At times, it is beyond the control of the Officers of the Appellant to enforce strict compliance of the Act, Rules and Regulations of SEBI.

20. In the light of the fact that the Appellate Authority consists of members drawn from the Central Government Ministries at Secretary level rank the Appellate Authority is a sui generis company and is unlike any other listed entity which is not saddled with the burden of government functions and senior government functionaries who are entrusted with multifarious functions in the Union Government. It was, thus, essential for the Respondent to consider this aspect of the matter while considering the application for extension of time under Regulation 102 of the LODR Regulations. We find that in the instant case whereas the Respondent has granted extension of time to file the audited financial results for the year ending 2018-19 the Respondent declined to grant extension of time to file unaudited financial results and the request was declined without assigning any reason. In our opinion, the nonassigning of any reason in the order of 7th October, 2019 was wholly arbitrary.

21. The finding of the Respondent that there was a repeated failure on the part of the Appellant on seven occasions for not filing the financial results for the financial years 2015-2016 to 2018-2019 cannot be taken into consideration as a ground for imposition of penalty of Rs.7 lakhs in as much as the show cause notice was only confined for violation of Regulation 52 of the LODR Regulations for non-filing of the unaudited half yearly financial results for the year ending 30th September, 2018 and 31st March, 2019. The delay in the filing of the returns for the earlier financial years stood exempted and condoned by the respondent themselves which cannot be taken as a mitigating circumstance for imposition of penalty.

22. The finding of the Adjudicating Officer that Regulation 52 does not provide for relaxation of the time period and that the financial results are required to be filed within the stipulated period is erroneous. The Supreme Court in Bhavesh Pabari’s case (supra) has clearly held that the conditions stipulated in clause (a), (b), and (c) of Sec. 15-J are not exhaustive and, in a given case, the AO can take note of other factors which are not specified in clause (a), (b), and (c) of Sec. 15-J of the Act.. In our view, the Adjudicating Officer also could have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances in addition to the factors mentioned under Section 15J while considering the imposition of penalty.

23. In the light of the aforeasaid, there is no doubt that if the Regulations require a particular act to be done in a particular manne

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r and within the stipulated period then noncompliance of the said provisions would invite imposition of penalty but the law also provides and gives power to the respondent to relax the strict enforcement of the Regulations. We are of the opinion that the Adjudicating Officer failed to take into consideration the mitigating circumstances as a factor under Sec. 15-J while considering the imposition of penalty. 24. Consequently, for the reasons stated aforesaid, we are of the view that even though there has been a violation of Regulation 52 of the LODR Regulations but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case which should not be treated as a precedent for other matters, we are of the opinion that the imposition of penalty of Rs.7 lakhs in the given circumstances was harsh and excessive. Thus, the imposition of Rs.7 lakhs upon the Appellant cannot be sustained and is substituted with a warning with a further condition that in the event the Appellant violates Regulation 52 of the LODR Regulations in future it will be open to the Respondent to initiate proceedings under the Act/LODR Regulations and proceed in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty of Rs.7 lakhs is substituted with a warning. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 25. 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 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.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-09-2020 The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram Versus Pandurangan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Vijaykumar Satramdas Lakhani Versus Central Board of Direct Taxes & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-09-2020 National Highways Authority of India Versus Sahakar Global Limited High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 Mangala & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited, (Ori. Respondent) Through its Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Panaji, Goa, Now Represented by its Regional Manager, Bengaluru Versus Imran Khan & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-09-2020 The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, Represented by its Divisional Controller, Mangaluru Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
22-09-2020 National Alliance For People's Movements & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chitradurga & Others Versus D. Mallappa & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 Heinz India Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2020 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Chennai, Chennai Versus M/s. X-Press Container Line (UK) Ltd., Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry Versus Ulagaratchagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
09-09-2020 Shreyas Sinha Versus The West Bengal National University Of Juridical Sciences & Others Supreme Court of India
07-09-2020 M. Jaikumar Versus The Chairman Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation ltd. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-09-2020 Saluvadi Sumalatha Versus The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (TREI-RB) rep., by its, Executive Officer (Convenor) & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai. Another Versus S. Manikandan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Patna Chapter, through its Convener Sri Jatindra Kumar Lall, Patna, Bihar Versus The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 Amrex Marketing Private Limited Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 DLF Limited Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-08-2020 Rameshwar Shaw Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
26-08-2020 T.S. Abinesh & Another Versus The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-08-2020 Ashlar Securities Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
26-08-2020 Greencrest Financial Services Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 M/s. Narmada Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pramod Gendre, Chhattisgarh Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2020 Indivar Traders Pvt. Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
20-08-2020 M.P. Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2020 The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, Represented by its Chairman & Others Versus B. Sivaramakrishnan Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 National Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttar Pardesh & Another Versus M/s. Khandelwal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 O.M.C. Neelakantan Namboodirippad Versus Malabar Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Commissioner, Kozhikode & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 Sunil Agrawal Versus Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board, Through its Chairman, Naya Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-08-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai Versus Vijaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus Paneerselvam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Highways Authority of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-07-2020 Torrent Minerals Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Jena Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Another High Court of Delhi
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan Versus Zenith Highrise Infracon Ltd. Narhuya Dharammatala Dakshin, Chandernagore, Hooghly & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 Sandeep Batra Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 Edelweiss Broking Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 Anant R. Sathe Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 Aurora UK Bidco Limited Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-07-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalorre Versus B. Muthusamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. Versus National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
16-07-2020 Kalpana Gupta Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-07-2020 Nikhil Singhvi Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-07-2020 Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Versus N.C. Santhosh & Others High Court of Kerala
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
13-07-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versis Baby & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2020 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another Versus Byamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-07-2020 Axis Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
03-07-2020 Inventure Growth & Securities Limited Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
02-07-2020 S. Murthy, Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, Bangalore Versus The Special Board, Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 Ishan Chadha Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
01-07-2020 India Ratings & Research Private Ltd. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
01-07-2020 Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus Baiju Chandran High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Ram Avtar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
15-06-2020 Piara Ram Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14 Versus Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Mahasagar Securities and Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 Bharati Das & Others Versus Jorhat Municipal Board & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-06-2020 Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
02-06-2020 R. Sridhar Versus The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Circle, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench