BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

[ADJUDICATION ORDER NO.SM/AO18/2014]

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 Surana Metals Limited

(PAN AAECS5214K)
In the matter of SCORES

FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF

1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) vide
Circular No.CIR/OIAE/1/2013 dated April 17, 2013 had directed all listed companies
to obtain SEBI Complaints Redressal System (SCORES) authentication within the
stipulated time period and also redress the pending investor grievances within the
stipulated time period.

2. SEBI observed that certain companies including Surana Metals Limited (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Noticee/the Company') had failed to obtain the SCORES
authentication and therefore, had failed to comply with the aforesaid SEBI Circular.
3. Thereafter, vide letter dated December 02, 2013, the aforesaid companies, including
the Noticee, were again advised to submit the requisite information regarding
SCORES authentication by December 18, 2013. However, the Noticee once again
failed to comply with the SEBI directive.
4. Based on the aforesaid observations, it was alleged that by failing to obtain SCORES
authentication

the

Noticee

has

violated

the

aforesaid

SEBI

Circular

No.

CIR/OIAE/1/2013 dated April 17, 2013. The alleged violation, if established, makes
_______________________________________________________________________________________
In the matter of SCORES Adjudications - Adjudication Order No.: SM/AO18/2014 dated December 02, 2014
Adjudication Order in the matter of Surana Metals Limited.
Page 1 of 5
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

the Noticee liable for monetary penalty under Section 15HB of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter known as 'SEBI Act').
APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
5. The undersigned was appointed as Adjudicating Officer under section 15-I of SEBI
Act and rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by
Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) to enquire into
and adjudicate under section 15HB of SEBI Act for the alleged violation by the
Noticee.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY OF NOTICEE AND PERSONAL HEARING
6. A Show Cause Notice No. SEBI/ERO/SM/ADJ/107/M-5176/2014 dated May 27, 2014
(herein after referred to as SCN) was issued to the Noticee under rule 4 of the Rules
to show cause as to why an inquiry be not held against them in terms of rule 4 of the
Rules read with section 15-I of SEBI Act and penalty be not imposed under Section
15HB of SEBI Act for the violations alleged to have been committed by the Noticee.
The copies of the documents relied upon in the SCN were provided to the Noticee
along with the SCN.
7. The Noticee submitted their reply to the SCN vide letter dated June 05, 2014.
Thereafter, the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on August 26,
2014. Shri Vikram Surana, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the Noticee
appeared for the hearing, and made submissions on behalf of the Noticee, reiterating
their earlier written submissions.
8. The submissions made by the Noticee are summarized below:

The

Noticee

first

submitted

that

they

had obtained

the

SCORES

Authentication on December 6, 2013 and therefore proceedings may be

dropped.

During the hearing, the Noticee, however, clarified that they could not comply
with the statutory compliances due to the fact that the Noticee had erroneously
taken a SCORES Registration rather than taking SCORES Authentication.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
In the matter of SCORES Adjudications - Adjudication Order No.: SM/AO18/2014 dated December 02, 2014
Adjudication Order in the matter of Surana Metals Limited.
Page 2 of 5
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz


The Noticee has limited business activity at present and the shares are not
traded on the CSE.

CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS

9. I have examined the SCN, the reply and the submissions of the Noticee, and other
information and documents available on record.
10. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are :
a) Whether the Noticee by failing to obtain SCORES authentication has failed to
comply with SEBI Circular No. CIR/OIAE/1/2013 dated April 17, 2013?
b) Does the violation, if any, on the part of the Noticee attract monetary penalty
under Section 15 HB of the SEBI Act?
c) If so, what would be the monetary penalty that can be imposed taking into
consideration the factors mentioned in Section 15J of the SEBI Act?
11. In the instant case, it is evident from the material available on record that the Noticee
had erroneously taken a SCORES registration, which is meant for investors, instead
of SCORES authentication as mandated in the SEBI Circular No. CIR/OIAE/1/2013
dated April 17, 2013. Although the action of the Noticee can be construed to be an
intent towards compliance with statutory requirements, failure to fulfill the actual
requirement, as required under the aforesaid circular, indicates ignorance of law. The
statement that the Noticee were ignorant of the regulatory provisions is not justified. It
is a well established legal maxim that "Ignorantiajuris non excusat", or "ignorance of
the law excuses no one". A listed company is expected to comply with the extant
regulatory and statutory requirements. I find that in the instant matter, the Noticee
failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence in discharge of its duty as a listed
company. In view of the foregoing, the alleged violation of the provisions of the
aforesaid SEBI Circulars by the Noticee as specified in the SCN stands established
and the Noticee therefore is liable for penalty.
12. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the matter of SEBI Vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund
[2006] 68 SCL 216(SC) and (2006) 131 Comp. Cas. 591 (SC) held that

_______________________________________________________________________________________
In the matter of SCORES Adjudications - Adjudication Order No.: SM/AO18/2014 dated December 02, 2014
Adjudication Order in the matter of Surana Metals Limited.
Page 3 of 5
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

In our considered opinion, penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory obligation as
contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is established and hence the intention of the parties committing
such violation becomes wholly irrelevant.
13. In view of the aforementioned violation, the Noticee is liable for monetary penalty
under Section 15HB of SEBI Act which reads as follows:

15HB.Penalty for contravention where no separate penalty has been provided.Whoever fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the rules or the regulations made or directions issued by
the Board thereunder for which no separate penalty has been provided, shall be liable to a penalty which may
extend to one crore rupees.
14. While determining the quantum of penalty under Section 15 HB of SEBI Act it is
important to consider the factors stipulated in Section 15J of SEBI Act which reads as
under:-

15JFactors 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.

15. It is difficult, in cases of such nature, to quantify the disproportionate gains or unfair
advantage enjoyed by an entity because of the default and also the magnitude of
consequent losses suffered by the investors. I note that there are no investor
complaints pending against the Noticee. In the absence of complete details, it is
difficult to quantify the quantum of penalty. However, the lack of due diligence
demonstrated by the Noticee is a risk to the securities market and thus loss to the
investors to that extent. I observe that default by the Noticee occurred on continuous
basis.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
In the matter of SCORES Adjudications - Adjudication Order No.: SM/AO18/2014 dated December 02, 2014
Adjudication Order in the matter of Surana Metals Limited.
Page 4 of 5
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

ORDER
16. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I impose a
penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only under Section 15 HB of the SEBI
Act against the Noticee which will be commensurate with the violations committed by
it.
17. The Noticee shall pay the said amount of penalty by way of demand draft 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 should be forwarded to the
Regional Director, SEBI Eastern Regional Office, 16, Camac Street, 3rd. Floor, Unit
301, Kolkata 700017.
18. In terms of Rule 6 of the Rules, copy of this order is sent to the Noticee and to the
Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Date: December 02, 2014

Place: Kolkata

SOMA MAJUMDER
ADJUDICATING OFFICER

_______________________________________________________________________________________
In the matter of SCORES Adjudications - Adjudication Order No.: SM/AO18/2014 dated December 02, 2014
Adjudication Order in the matter of Surana Metals Limited.
Page 5 of 5
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz