BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Appeal No. 74 of 2011

Date of Decision : 07.06.2011

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bansal
1503, Safalaya Targa Baug,
Love Lane, Byculla (East),
Mumbai – 400 010.

…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. D.P. Desai, Advocate with Ms. Dhwani Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant.

Dr. Mrs. Poornima Advani, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Khaire and Ms. Amrita Joshi,
Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer
S.S.N. Moorthy, Member

Per : Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral)

This appeal is directed against th e order dated February 22, 2011 passed by
the adjudicating officer imposing a penalty of ` 1 lakh on the appellant for violating
Regulations 3 and 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Pr actices relating to Secur ities Market) Regulations,

2003. 50,000 is for violating the regulations and another sum of 50,000 has been
      imposed for violating the code of conduct prescribed for stock brokers.
2004. The only ground on which the impugned order has been challenged before us
      is that the respondent – Securities and Excha nge Board of India (for short the Board)
      had earlier initiated proceedings under the enquiry regulations against the appellant 2
      for violating Regulations 3 and 4 of the aforesaid regulations and that its certificate of
      registration had been cancelled by the whol e time member of the Board by his order
      dated June 28, 2006 and now adjudication proc eedings could not be initiated for the
      same violations. The learned counsel for the respondent Board points out that the
      charges levelled against the appellant in the earlier proceedings were totally different
      from the charges now levelled by the adjudicating officer. Without going into this
      issue, we are clearly of the view that ev en for the same violations, the Board after
      cancelling the certificate of registration of the appellan t, could initiate proceedings
      under Chapter VIA of the Securities and Ex change Board of India Act, 1992 for the
      imposition of a monetary penalty. Proceed ings under section 12A read with the
      enquiry regulations framed by the Board is one set of actions which the Board can
      initiate and proceedings under Chapter VIA of the Act which are independent could
      be initiated for imposing a monetary penalt y. This is the scheme of the Act. We
      cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this
      regard. Since the impugned order has not been challenged on any other ground, we
      cannot but uphold the impugned order and dism iss the appeal which we hereby do
      with no order as to costs.

Sd/-
Justice N.K. Sodhi
Presiding Officer

                Sd/-  
                         S.S.N. Moorthy  
                        Member 

07.06.2011
Prepared and compared by:
msb

Download Order Copy