C.Achuthan, - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the Appellant claiming to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer on 26.6.2002, imposing a penalty of Rs.50,000 holding that the Appellant as merchant banker had failed to comply with the requirements of regulations 15(2) read with regulation 24(3) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997 (the 1997 Regulations) in the matter of public offer made by Allianz International Private Limited to acquire 20% of the share capital of a company viz Adhbhut Industrial Resources Ltd.
(2.) When the Appellant's prayer for interim order staying the operation of the impugned order was taken up, the Authorised Representative of the Appellant submitted that the delay in filing the report with the Respondent was unintentional that it was due to certain administrative problems in the Appellant's office, and the delay involved was only 2 days. He submitted that imposition of penalty is not justified in the facts of the case and prayed that the Appellant may not be insisted upon to pay the penalty during the pendency of the Appeal. Shri A. Barua, Representative of the Respondent submitted that the Appellant has admitted the failure to comply with the requirements of the regulation, that the quantum of penalty is small, that the Appellant itself did not consider any urgency warranting an interim order as is evident from the fact that the appeal against the order dated 26.6.2002 was lodged in the Tribunal on 9.8.2002 and resubmitted after removing the defects only on 2.9.2002. He submitted that the Appellant has not made out any case justifying its prayer for interim order.
(3.) ON a perusal of the order and on consideration of the submissions by the parties, it is seen that the Appellant had filed the report with the Respondent belatedly and therefore the Adjudicating Officer decided to impose Rs.50,000 as penalty. The Appellant has not made out a case before me establishing a prima facie case in its favour. It has not been established that the balance of convenience of granting interim relief is in favour of the Appellant. The Appellant has also not established that if the impugned order is allowed to operate unrestrained, the Appellant would suffer irreparable injury.;