Appellant has 8 queries regarding Karvy’s closure cum transfer application: SEBI, Part 3.

In response to query number 5, the respondent informed that if any action is taken by SEBI, the same would be available in the public domain, on the SEBI website. The respondent also provided the link to access the SEBI website for updated information from time to time.

It is understood that SEBI conducts examinations/ investigations confidentially, to examine alleged or suspected violations of laws and regulations relating to the securities market. However, post investigation, whenever violations are established, appropriate enforcement actions are taken under provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulations framed thereunder, which culminate in the issuance of orders and the same are available on the SEBI website, which is in public domain. It was noted that the respondent also provided the link to access the SEBI website. In view of the same, no deficiency was found in the response by Mr Baiwar.

With respect to query number 6, the respondent provided the link for accessing the document enumerating the rights and obligations of the broker and client as prescribed by SEBI and Stock Exchanges. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the SCORES portal, for lodging a grievance, if any.

Mr Baiwar had perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration, it was found that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Further, it was noted that the appellant has not made any specific submission against the response provided by the respondent. In view of the same, no interference of this forum is warranted at this stage.

The respondent, in response to the queries 7 and 8, informed that if an investor/ complainant is not satisfied with the redressal of his complaint, he can appeal against the resolution in SCORES or at Exchange. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the grievance mechanism at NSE.

On perusal of the queries, it appears that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion from the respondent regarding procedure followed for disposal of complaints. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act.

Click here to read the entire order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat