BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

(ADJUDICATION ORDER NO: OIAE/EAD-3/AO/DRK-VB/-729/54-2015)

______________________________________________________________
UNDER SECTION 15 - I OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF
INDIA ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
BOARD OF INDIA (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING
PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES, 1995.
In respect of:
Rajasthan Polyvin Tubes Ltd,
66, Nai Aabadi Road No-2,
Mandsaur 458 001(M.P)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FACTS IN BRIEF
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI)
observed that Rajasthan Polyvin Tubes Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Noticee /
Company / RPTL') had not redressed 5 investor grievances pending against it
which were pending for more than 2 years as per SEBI Complaints Redress
System (hereinafter referred to as 'SCORES').
APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
2. I was appointed as Adjudicating Officer under Section 15 I of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as SEBI Act) read
with Rule 3 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding
Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as Adjudication Rules) to inquire into and adjudge under Sections
15A (a) and 15C of the SEBI Act the failure to redress investor grievances alleged
to have been committed by the noticee and the same was communicated vide
proceedings of the Whole Time Member appointing Adjudicating Officer dated
10.05.2013.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING
3. A Show Cause Notice No. A&E/EAD-3/DRK-DS/18692/2013 dated July 30, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as SCN) was served upon the noticee on August 05,
Page 1 of 6
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

2013 by Speed Post Acknowledgement Due (hereinafter referred to as SPAD)

to show cause as to why an inquiry be not held against the noticee and why
penalty be not imposed under Sections 15A (a) and 15C of the SEBI Act, for the
alleged violation by the noticee.

4. It was also alleged that SEBI issued a Public Notice dated January 13, 2013
against the companies which had failed to obtain SCORES authentication,
wherein

the name of

RPTL

was included.

Further, vide

circular no.

CIR/OIAE/1/2013 dated April 17, 2013, SEBI advised all the companies to obtain
SCORES authentication within one month from the date of the said circular.
However, as on May 24, 2013 noticee had not approached SEBI for the
authentication and has not yet activated the SCORES authentication and
submitted the ATR.
5. It was alleged that SEBI vide letter dated February 15, 2013, had observed that 5
(five) investor grievances were pending against noticee in SCORES for redressal
for more than two years. SEBI vide circular no. CIR/OIAE/2/2011 dated June 03,
2011 stipulated that listed companies shall view the complaints pending against
them and submit Action Taken Report (ATR) failing which shall be treated as nonredressal of the investor grievance by the company. The said letter also
mentioned that you had not activated the SCORES authentication as required
under the SEBI circular no. CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13, 2012. It was
further mentioned that you neither viewed the grievances nor took any measure to
redress any grievances despite being called upon by SEBI in writing to do so.
6. The noticee vide its letter dated August 13, 2013 stated that it is facing economical
problem and would co-operate to resolve all the grievances. Further, the noticee
requested for a meeting in the month of September to submit details. In response
to the same an opportunity of hearing was granted to the noticee to attend the
hearing at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai on September 11, 2013 at 12:30 pm vide
hearing notice dated August 23, 2013 which was served upon the noticee by
Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (hereinafter referred to as RPAD).
7. The hearing on September 11, 2013 was attended by Shri Mukesh Trivedi and
Shri Rakesh Trivedi (Directors of the Noticee, herein after referred to as "ARs")
and the ARs made the following submissions that :

Page 2 of 6
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

a) The company is facing severe economical problems and thus unable to

redress the investor grievances. The ARs have further submitted that
the Registrar and Transfer Agent (RTA) of the company, SM
Consultancy has closed down the business without handing over any
papers to them. ARs have further submitted that the RTA did not inform
the company about any investor complaint. The ARs have submitted
that the company is trying to retrieve the records / papers from RTA,
which is taking time and therefore have sought time till March 2014 to
resolve all the investor complaints.
b) The ARs have also submitted that the company has filed a case against
Mandsaur Co-operative Bank, which closed down in the year 2003 for
retrieving its fund and also against Rajasthan Government for not giving
it subsidies as agreed upon. The ARs have undertaken to file a detailed
reply with respect to same within 10 days.
8. Accordingly the noticee vide its letter dated 18.09.2013 submitted a detailed reply
to the SCN as follows:

We are facing great economical problem.

Our Registrar & transfer agent S.M. Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai has
closed down the business without information & handing over any paper.
Now due to this reason it is very difficult for us to resolve the investors
grievances we are trying to develop alternate arrangement for the same.

We are facing financial dispute and court cases with Mandsaur commercial
co-operative Bank Ltd. Mandsaur. RBI cancelled the Banking license to the
above said Bank in 2003.

Our unit situated in the tribal area of Rajasthan. In 1995 Rajasthan Govt.
announced several subsidy benefits to new industrial units established in
tribal area of Rajasthan but unfortunately Rajasthan Govt. did not fulfill their
commitment and did not give any subsidy like capital subsidy, power
subsidy, interest subsidy etc. and sales tax exemption to our unit. After
promise and agreement Rajasthan Govt. u-turned. We submitted many
representations regarding the same and for our legal rights we are
protesting legally in the proper forum.

Rajasthan Electricity Board did not supply regular electricity to our unit. They
supplied rural based electricity instead of industrial supply with much untolerable interruption.

Due to the above mentioned reason we are facing the economical problem
and losses and court cases. Again we request you to give us six (6) months
time up to March 2014 to resolve all the pending investor complains.
Page 3 of 6

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

9. I have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the
material available on record.
10. From the material available on record, it is noted that the noticee was required to
obtain SCORES Authentication before September 14, 2012. However, the
noticee has failed to obtain the SCORES Authentication till date. Therefore, the
allegation in this regard stands established.
11. From the material available on record, it is noted that the noticee has not
submitted the ATR and has not redressed the said grievances of the investors
despite sufficient opportunities provided by SEBI. As per SEBI circular dated
August 13, 2012, All companies against whom complaints are pending on
SCORES, shall take appropriate necessary steps within 7 days of receipt of
complaint by the concerned company through SCORES so as to resolve the
complaint within 30 days of receipt of complaint and also keep the complainant
duly informed of the action taken. I note that as per SEBI circular dated August
13, 2012, the Noticee was required to redress the grievances with in a period of
30 days which it had failed to do so. Therefore, it is established that the Noticee
had failed to redress the grievances of the complainants as alleged i.e. within the
specified period of 30 days.
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, I am of the opinion that the noticee has not
activated the SCORES authentication and submitted the ATR. Further, the
noticee has delayed in resolving the aforesaid investor grievances and has failed
to redress the investor grievances within the specified period. Therefore, the
noticee has violated Sections 15A (a) and 15 C of the SEBI Act. The text of of the
said Sections are reproduced as under:
SEBI Act
Penalty for failure to furnish information, return, etc.
15A. If any person, who is required under this Act or any rules or regulations made
thereunder; (a) to furnish any document, return or report to the Board, fails to furnish the same, 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;

Page 4 of 6
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Penalty for failure to redress investors grievances

15C. 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.

13. For determining the quantum of penalty under Sections 15A (a) and 15 C of the
SEBI Act, the factors stipulated in section 15 J of the SEBI Act, have been taken
into consideration.
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.

14. With regard to the above factors to be considered while determining the quantum
of penalty, it is noted that the disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made by
the noticee or loss caused to the investor as a result of the delay on the part of
the noticee to redress the investor grievances are not available on record.
Further, it may also be added that it is difficult to quantify the unfair advantage
made by the noticee or the loss caused to the investor in a default of this nature.

15. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
by the noticee and after taking into account the factors under Section 15J of the
SEBI Act, 1992, I find that a penalty of ` 50,000 /- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
each under Section 15A (a) and Section 15C of the SEBI Act on the noticee
would commensurate for non redressal of investor grievances within the
prescribed time period.
ORDER:
16. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15-I of the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and Rule 5 of Securities and Exchange
Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by
Page 5 of 6
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995, I hereby impose a consolidated penalty of

` 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lakh Only) upon Rajasthan Polyvin Tubes Ltd. under
the provisions of Section 15A (a) and Section 15C of the SEBI Act for non
activation of SCORES authentication and non submission of ATR and non
redressal of investors grievances. I am of the view that the said penalty is
commensurate with the aforesaid failure committed by the noticee.
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 Demand Draft shall be
forwarded to the Chief General Manager (OIAE), Securities and Exchange Board
of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No.C4-A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra
(East), Mumbai 400 051.
18. In terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India
(Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer)
Rules 1995, copies of this order is being sent to Rajasthan Polyvin Tubes Ltd.
having office at 66, Nai Aabadi Road No-2,Mandsaur 458 001 (M.P) and also to
the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai.

Date: 31.03.2015

D. RAVI KUMAR

Place: Mumbai

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER &

ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Page 6 of 6
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz