Page 1 of 5

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
(ADJUDICATION ORDER NO: EAD-3/AO/DRK/JP/ 581/125 of 2014)
______________________________________________________________
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:
Gazi Financial Services and Investments Ltd.
(PAN: AABCG2102P)

Regd. Office at: 12-A, Mehta House, 36,
Pandita Rambai Road, Chowpatty,
Mumbai- 400 007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI)
observed that Gazi Financial Services and Investments Ltd. (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Noticee / the Company / Gazi ") had neither obtained the SEBI
Complaints Redressal System (SCORES) authentication nor redressed the
grievance of investor.
Appointment of Adjudicating Officer:
2. Undersigned was appointed as Adjudicating Officer under section 15-I of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 (hereinafter known as 'SEBI
Act') read with Rule 3 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing
Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as
Adjudication Rules) vide communiqu dated May 21, 2013, to inquire into and
adjudicate under Section 15 A (a) and 15 C of the SEBI Act, the alleged violations
by the Company.
Show Cause Notice, Reply of Noticee and Personal Hearing:
3. A Show Cause Notice No. A&E/EAD-3/DRK-VVK/18960/2013 dated July 30, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as SCN) was issued to the Noticee under Rule 4 (1) of
the Adjudication Rules, to show cause as to why an inquiry be not held against the
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 2 of 5

Noticee and penalty be not imposed under section 15 A (a) and 15 C of the SEBI
Act, for the alleged violations of non redressal of investor grievance and non
obtaining of SCORES authentication. The allegations against the Noticee as
levelled in the SCN, are produced hereunder;
a. Vide letter dated January 22, 2013, SEBI advised the Noticee to furnish the
authentication details for implementation of SCORES within 7 days from the
date of receipt of the letter to enable the Company to view and resolve the
investor grievances in SCORES, failing which SEBI may initiate appropriate
actions. Under the said letter, reference of SEBI Circular No. CIR/OIAE/2/2011
dated June 03, 2011 and SEBI Circular No. CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13,
2012 was drawn requiring all the companies which are listed on any Stock
Exchange to view the complaints pending against them and submit Action Taken
Report (ATR) electronically in SCORES.
b. SEBI vide letter dated February 15, 2013 reminded the Noticee to redress the
grievances of investor and submit the Action Taken Report (ATR) through
SCORES.
c. Vide Circular No. CIR/OIAE/1/2013 dated April 17, 2013, SEBI advised the
companies to obtain SCORES authentication within one month from the date of
the said Circular, however, as on May 24, 2013, the Noticee had not
approached SEBI for the authentication.
d. SCN stated that vide letter dated February 15, 2013, the Noticee was asked to
resolve the pending complaints at the earliest. However, allegedly, the Noticee
had failed to resolve the grievances of the complainant, failed to reply to the
aforesaid letters dated January 22, 2013 & February 15, 2013, failed to obtain
the SCORES authentication and also failed to submit the ATR as required.
e. It was stated in the SCN that as on May 24, 2013, one investor grievance /
complaint was pending against the Noticee in SCORES which was pending for
more than two years. List of the investor grievance was enclosed with SCN.
f. In view of the above, it was alleged that the Noticee had failed to obtain the
SCORES authentication / furnish ATR and failed to resolve two investor
grievances, which are in violation of Section 15A (a) and 15C of the SEBI Act.
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 3 of 5

The provisions of Section 15A(a) and 15C of the SEBI Act are produced
hereunder;
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;

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.


4. The said SCN was served upon the Noticee on August 05, 2013 through hand
delivery. In respect of SCN, the Noticee filed reply dated August 07, 2013.
Thereafter, for the purpose of inquiry, an opportunity of hearing was granted to the
Noticee on April 23, 2014 vide notice dated April 11, 2014 which was duly served
upon the Noticee through Regd. Post AD. In the aforesaid notice, it was inter-alia
stated that if no appearance is made by the Noticee on the scheduled date of
hearing, then, the matter would be decided on the basis of evidence available on
records. However, Noticee neither appeared on the aforesaid date of hearing nor
responded the hearing notice.
5. Therefore, I am proceeding the case taking into account the Noticees aforesaid
reply towards the SCN and the material available on records. The submissions
made by the Noticee in its reply is mentioned below;
(a) The company has obtained SCORES authentication on February 13, 2012 (copy of proof is
enclosed).

(b) The complaint of Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta that our company has changed the Registered
Office address and did not update the same is incorrect. As from the date of incorporation
of company our registered office is same and never changed. The same may be verified
from RoC and BSE. We do not know on which address he (complainant) had sent letter to
inform us regarding his change of residential address. The ITR (Income Tax) are enclosed
herewith to show that our registered office address was not changed.

(c) There is no pending complaint of any investor as on August 05, 2013. Copy of web page of
SCORES is enclosed.


Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 4 of 5

Consideration of Issues and Finding:
6. In respect to the allegations of non activation of SCORES authentication, the
Noticee filed a copy of printout showing activation of SCORES authentication. I
have perused the copy of ATR as mentioned in SCORES (submitted by the SEBI)
and observed that the Noticee had obtained the SCORES authentication on
February 13, 2012 itself (i.e. before issuance of the SCN). It is also clarified by
SEBI that the Company had obtained SCORES authentication. Also, such
authentication was obtained by the Noticee before the SEBI Circular No.
CIR/OIAE/1/2012 dated August 13, 2012 and SEBI Circular dated April 17, 2013.
In view of the above activation of SCORES by the Noticee, the allegation against
the Noticee that it had failed to obtain the SCORES authentication doe not stand
established.
7. In respect of investor grievance, it was alleged that 1 complaint of Mr. Ashok
Kumar Gupta (Complainant) dated February 13, 2012 for non updation of
address/signature or correction etc. was pending at the end of Noticee.
8. In respect to the allegation of non - redressal of aforesaid investor's grievance, the
Noticee submitted that from the date of incorporation of company the registered
office is the same and never changed. In support of such contention, the Noticee
submitted copy of Income Tax Return. From the available records, it is clear that
the Company has the same registered office address at the relevant point of time
when the complaint was made.
9. It is matter of record that the aforesaid complaint (dated February 13, 2012) was
forwarded to the Noticee by SEBI on February 13, 2012 itself. The Noticee
forwarded said complaint to Bigshare Services Pvt. Ltd. (the RTA) on the next day
i.e. February 14, 2012 for necessary action. On April 14, 2012, the RTA / Bigshare
took action as reflected at SCORES which shows that a letter dated April 12, 2012
was issued to the complainant informing that the Company has not declared
dividend and enclosed the copy of Annual Report. Reminders were sent by the
Noticee to the Complainant and dispatch proofs were also filed/attached on
SCORES.
10. It is relevant to mention here that the grievances of the complainant as mentioned
in SCN and as confirmed by the SEBI during the instant proceedings was only
about non updation of change in registered office address by the Company and
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 5 of 5

non receipt of divided. The allegation of non redressal of aforesaid grievances
does not stand established in view of steps taken by the Noticee / RTA as
observed above.
11. Further, it is noted from the records (SCORES printout as submitted by the
Noticee in the present proceeding and as clarified by the SEBI) that no complaints
were pending on SCORES as on July 26, 2013 as all of them were resolved.
12. In view of aforesaid observations, available records and after considering the case
in entirety, I am of the view that Noticee had not violated the provisions of Section
15 A (a) and 15 C of the SEBI Act.
Order:
13. In view of the above, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case
and exercising the powers conferred upon me under section 15-I of the SEBI Act,
1992 read with rule 5 of the Adjudication Rules, I hereby conclude that the alleged
violations do not stand established against the Noticee. Therefore, the matter is
disposed off accordingly.
14. Copy of this order is being sent to the Noticee (Gazi Financial Services and
Investments Ltd.) and also to the Securities and Exchange Board of India, in terms
of Rule 6 of the Adjudication Rules.



Place: Mumbai D. RAVI KUMAR
Date: August 28, 2014 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER &
ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz