Adjudication Order in Respect of Hartron Networks LTD

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. JJ/AM/AO79/2015
UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING
INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES,
1995
In respect of:
Hartron Networks Limited
(PAN Not Available)
In the Matter of: Hartron Networks Limited
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) came out with a Circular
dated June 03, 2011 dealing with the processing of investor complaints
against listed companies through SEBI Complaints Redress System
(SCORES). In terms of said Circular, all listed companies were inter alia
required to view the complaints pending against them, redress them and
submit Action Taken Reports (ATRs) electronically in SCORES. As the
SCORES is online electronic system, therefore, for the purposes of
accessing the complaints of the investors against them, as uploaded in the
SCORES, listed companies were required to login to SCORES system
electronically through a company specific user id and password, to be
provided by SEBI. For the purpose of generating said user id and
password, listed companies which were yet to obtain SCORES user id and
password, were required to submit the details for authentication to SEBI,
in the format annexed to the said Circular. However, it was observed that
Hartron Networks Limited (Noticee) did not submit the details to SEBI
which were required to be furnished in terms of the said Circular.
2. In order to further remind the Noticee about the compliance with the
requirements as laid down in the SEBI Circular dated June 03, 2011,
letters dated April 18, 2012 and April 25, 2012 were sent to the Noticee
informing about the commencement of processing of investor complaints
in a centralized web based complaints redress system SCORES in terms
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

Page 1 of 8
March 31, 2015
of the Circular and advising the Noticee to send the information (i.e.
details for authentication) as required in the Circular.
3. As observed from the contents of the Circular, SCORES introduced
electronic dealing of the complaints of the investors, by the respective
companies. Thus, once a complaint against a company was uploaded by
SEBI in the SCORES, it amounted to calling upon by SEBI to such company
to redress the investor grievance. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon
such company to redress the investor complaint. It was observed that
four investor complaints were pending against the Noticee as on August
27, 2012. However, it was alleged that the Noticee failed to redress
pending investor grievances and also failed to obtain SCORES
authentication in spite of being called upon by SEBI to do so thereby
violating the provisions of Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992.
4. Shri Praveen Trivedi was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer to inquire
and adjudge under Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992, the alleged
violations committed by the Noticee. Pursuant to the transfer of Shri
Praveen Trivedi, the undersigned was appointed as Adjudicating Officer
vide Order dated December 18, 2013.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING & REPLY
5. Show Cause Notice (SCN) in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(1) of SEBI
(Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating
Officer) Rules, 1995 (Adjudication Rules) was issued to the Noticee on
July 31, 2013, calling upon the Noticee to show cause why an inquiry
should not be held against it under Rule 4(3) of the Adjudication Rules
read with Section 15I of the SEBI Act, 1992 for the alleged violations.
6. The aforesaid SCN was duly delivered to the Noticee through the
Department of Post. However, no reply was received from the Noticee.
Subsequent to the appointment of the undersigned, vide Notice dated
February 13, 2015 the Noticee was given an opportunity of personal
hearing on March 11, 2015. Vide letter dated March 10, 2015 (having ref
no. HNL/15/SEBI/0010) the Noticee inter alia made the following
submissions:
Whereas the company has complied with the directions and orders of SEBI
regarding activation of SCORE option and resolving the investors complaint

Page 2 of 8
March 31, 2015
online. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no investors complaint

remained un-addressed till date, this fact could be verified by your office.
Further with respect to the complaint of Mr. Kinjlal R Maniar, your goodself is
informed that the company has never received any request for the transfer of
shares in favour of Mr. Kinjlal R Maniar. There are no documents such as duly
executed Share Transfer Deed and Share Certificates delivered to the company
by Mr. Kinjlal R Maniar. Therefore, it could not be possible to affect the transfer
of shares in favour of Mr. Kinjlal R Maniar. Hence, the complaint being non-est
could not be given effect to.
In view of the above submission, your office is requested to please advise the
complainant to submit the Share Transfer Deed duly executed between him
and the seller and then lodged the same to company for transfer. We assure
you that in case the documents are found in order, the company will transfer
the shares in favour of the complainant within a period of seven days from the
date of receipt thereof.
7. Subsequently, vide another letter dated March 10, 2015 (having ref no.
HNL/15/SEBI/0011) the Noticee inter alia made the following
submissions:
Whereas, the complaints Mr. Shori Lal and Mamta Agarwal are already
resolved. The complaint of Mr. Shyam Prakash Tiwari need no resolution as the
company has never declared dividend since last more than 15 years, therefore
there could be no complaint regarding non-receipt of dividend. The complaint
of Mrs. Rashmi Sharma could not be resolved as the complainant has not
submitted the required documents for transfer of shares in her name. The
copies of correspondence made with the complainants are enclosed herewith
for your ready reference.
In view of the above, it is requested that the matter may please be looked into
once again and on ascertaining confirmation from SCORE, the show cause
notice issued to the company may be withdrawn with no further action in
terms of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding
Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 be taken.
8. I note that the Noticee was duly provided with an opportunity of personal
hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. I also note
that though the Noticee has made submissions vide its two letters dated
March 10, 2015; the Noticee has not requested for another opportunity of
personal hearing. Since, sufficient opportunity has been provide to the
Noticee to make its submissions, therefore, I am proceeding with the
inquiry taking into account the material available on record.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
9. After perusal of the material available on record, I have the following
issues for consideration, viz.,
A. Whether the Noticee has failed to resolve investor grievances?

Page 3 of 8
March 31, 2015
B. Whether the Noticee is liable for monetary penalty under Section 15C
of the SEBI Act, 1992?
C. What quantum of monetary penalty should be imposed on the Noticee
taking into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 15J of the
SEBI Act, 1992?
FINDINGS
10. On perusal of the material available on record and giving regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I record my findings hereunder.
ISSUE 1: Whether the Noticee has failed to resolve investor
grievances?
11. As already observed, SEBI introduced an online electronic system for
resolution of investor grievances, i.e., SCORES in 2011. For the purposes
of accessing the complaints of the investors against them, as uploaded in
the SCORES, listed companies were required to login to SCORES system
electronically through a company specific user id and password, to be
provided by SEBI. By not submitting the details for authentication as
required by the Circular, the Noticee did not obtain the user id and
password which was essential for accessing the complaints pertaining to
the Noticee, as uploaded on the SCORES for redressing the investors
grievances and subsequent redressal thereof. Vide letters dated April 18,
2012 and April 25, 2012 the Noticee was once again advised to obtain the
SCORES authentication. However, the Noticee failed to obtain the SCORES
authentication. From the SCN I also note that the Noticee did not resolve
4 (four) investor grievances pending against it as on August 27, 2012.
12. The Noticee, vide its one letter dated March 10, 2015 (ref no.
HNL/15/SEBI/0010), has submitted that it has complied with the
directions and orders of SEBI regarding activation of SCORE option and
resolving the investors complaint online. Vide the said letter the Noticee
has also made submissions regarding the compliant of one Mr. Kinjlal R
Maniar. However, I note that no such complaint of Mr. Kinjlal R Maniar is
mentioned in the SCN and hence I am not dealing with the submissions of
the Noticee in this regard.
13. The Noticee, vide another letter dated March 10, 2015 (ref no.
HNL/15/SEBI/0011), has submitted that the complaints of Mr. Shori Lal

Page 4 of 8
March 31, 2015
and Mamta Agarwal are already resolved. From the SCN I note that these
two complaints were received in 2006 and 2008 respectively and both
the complaints were relating to non-receipt of shares after transfer; and
after introduction of SCORES, the same was updated on SCORES portal.
However, as proof of resolution the Noticee has only enclosed copies of
its letters dated February 24, 2015 that it had written to the complainants
(alongwith copy of postal receipt evidencing proof of dispatch).
Regarding the complaint of Mr. Shyam Prakash Tiwari the Noticee has
stated that the same needed no resolution as the Noticee had never
declared dividend since last 15 years. However, the Noticee could have
written a letter to the complainant (Mr. Shyam Prakash Tiwari) informing
him the same. I note that the Noticee wrote a letter to the complainant
only on February 24, 2015; whereas the complaint was received July
2009 and subsequently uploaded on SCORES portal, when SCORES was
introduced in 2011. Regarding the complaint of Rashmi Sharma relating
to non-receipt of shares after transfer, the Noticee has stated that the
same could not be resolved as the complainant had not submitted the
documents required for transfer of shares in her name. The Noticee has
also submitted a copy of its letter dated March 05, 2015 that it has
written to the complainant vide which the Noticee has inter alia returned
the original share transfer deed to the complainant. I note that Rashmi
Sharma had lodged the complaint in August 2010 which was
subsequently uploaded in SCORES. The material available on record
clearly show that the Noticee was aware that Rashmi Sharma had
requested for transfer of shares, however, the Noticee waited till March
2015 to take any action on the issue.
14. I have carefully perused the submissions of the Noticee and I note that
nowhere has the Noticee stated that it had not received the SCN.
Regarding all the four investor grievances (as mentioned in the SCN), I
note that the Noticee has not submitted any documents that could show
that it had taken timely steps to resolve the investor grievances. From the
documents submitted by the Noticee, I note that it took appropriate
action only in 2015. Subsequently, SEBI has also confirmed that the
Noticee had obtained SCORES authentication on August 19, 2013 and the
four investor grievances (as mentioned in the SCN) were resolved in
SCORES database on March 10, 2015.

Page 5 of 8
March 31, 2015
15. I note that despite SEBI Circular dated June 03, 2011 and reminder letters
dated April 18, 2012 and April 25, 2012 the Noticee took SCORES
authentication after the issuance of SCN and took steps to resolve the
investor grievances in 2015. The SEBI Circular dated June 03, 2011
clearly states that all listed companies are required to view the
complaints pending against them and submit ATRs alongwith supporting
documents electronically in SCORES and failure to update the ATR in
SCORES will be treated as non redressal of investor complaints by the
company. Further, Honble Securities Appellate Tribunal in S. S. Forgings
& Engineering Limited & Others v SEBI, Appeal No. 176 of 2014 (decided
on
August
28,
2014)
has,
inter-alia,
observed
that
Undoubtedly, an obligation is cast upon every listed company to

redress investors grievances in a time bound manner as may be prescribed by
SEBI from time to time. This Tribunal has consistently held that
redressal of investors grievances is extremely important for the Regulator to
regulate the capital market. If the grievances are not redressed within a time
bound framework, it leads to frustration among the investors who may not be
motivated to further invest in the capital market. Hence the importance of
complaints redressal system initiated by SEBI in June, 2011 cannot be
undermined and its sanctity has to be maintained by all the listed
companies.. Therefore, I hold that the Noticee has failed in its duty of
resolving the investor grievances pending against it as alleged in the SCN.
ISSUE 2: Whether the Noticee is liable for monetary penalty under
Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992?
16. The provisions of Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992, read as under:
15C Penalty for failure to redress investors' grievances: If any listed
company or any person who is registered as an intermediary, after
having been called upon by the Board in writing, to redress the
grievances of investors, fails to redress such grievances within the time
specified by the Board, such company or intermediary 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.
17. In the matter of SEBI Vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund [2006] 68 SCL 216 (SC), the
Honble Supreme Court of India has held that In our considered opinion,
penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory obligation
as contemplated by the Act and the regulation is established and hence the

Page 6 of 8
March 31, 2015
intention of the parties committing such violation becomes wholly

irrelevant.
18. A listed company is expected to comply with the extant regulatory and
statutory requirements. As already observed, the Noticee failed in
resolving the investor grievances pending against it, despite being called
upon to do so by SEBI. Therefore, the Noticee is also liable for monetary
penalty under Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992.
ISSUE 3: What quantum of monetary penalty should be imposed on the
Noticee taking into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 15J
of the SEBI Act, 1992?
19. While imposing monetary penalty it is important to consider the factors
stipulated in Section 15J of the Act, which reads as under:
15J - Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer
While adjudging quantum of penalty under section 15-I, the
adjudicating officer shall have due regard to the following factors,
namely:(a)the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever
quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
(b)the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors as a
result of the default;
(c)the repetitive nature of the default.
20. In the absence of material on record, the amount of disproportionate gain
or unfair advantage made as a result of the default and the amount of loss
caused to the investors due to the said default cannot be quantified.
However, the fact remains that the Noticee, being a listed company, failed
to fulfil its duty of complying with SEBI Circulars. It is the duty of SEBI to
ensure speedy resolution of investor grievances and to further the cause
SEBI has come out with SCORES which is a centralized web based
complaints redress system that enable investors to lodge and follow up
their complaints and track the status of redressal of such complaints from
anywhere. After introduction of SCORES, all listed companies are
required to view the complaints pending against them and submit ATRs
alongwith supporting documents electronically in SCORES and SEBI
Circular dated June 03, 2011 clearly states that failure to update the ATR
in SCORES will be treated as non redressal of investor complaints by the
company. However, listed companies like the Noticee which do not obtain
SCORES authentication and do not resolve investor grievances and
upload ATRs in SCORES despite SEBI Circulars frustrate the entire

Page 7 of 8
March 31, 2015
process. It is of utmost importance that every listed company assigns high

priority to investor grievances and takes all necessary steps to redress
the grievances of investors at the earliest, which the Noticee has failed to
do. Hence, the omission on part of the Noticee is detrimental to the
interest of investors in securities market.
21. In view of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is now established that the Noticee
failed to resolve investor grievance and therefore I find that imposing a
penalty of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the Noticee would be
commensurate with the violation committed.
ORDER
22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in terms of the
provisions of SEBI Act, 1992 and Rule 5(1) of the Adjudication Rules, I
hereby impose a penalty of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under
Section 15C of the SEBI Act, 1992, on Hartron Networks Limited.
23. The penalty shall be paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of
SEBI Penalties Remittable to Government of India payable at Mumbai
within 45 days of receipt of this Order. The said demand draft shall be
forwarded to the Regional Director, Northern Regional Office, Securities
and Exchange Board of India, 5th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.
24. In terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding
Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules 1995,
copies of this Order are being sent to the Noticee and also to Securities
and Exchange Board of India.
Date: March 31, 2015

Place: Mumbai
Jayanta Jash
Adjudicating Officer

Page 8 of 8
March 31, 2015

Adjudication Order in Respect of Hartron Networks LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adjudication Order in Respect of Hartron Networks LTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adjudication Order in Respect of Hartron Networks LTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

online. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no investors complaint

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

Undoubtedly, an obligation is cast upon every listed company to

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

intention of the parties committing such violation becomes wholly

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

process. It is of utmost importance that every listed company assigns high

Date: March 31, 2015

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Adjudication Order in respect of Hartron Networks Ltd.

March 31, 2015

You might also like