Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'sebi'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 25 results

  1. Dear RTI Gurus: I filed an RTI query with SEBI, using an e-IPO to make payment of INR 11 towards application fees. Just noticed that I received text notification on my cell phone: "Dear Customer, your Account XXxxx has been credited with INR 11.00 on 22-Jan-20. Info: VPS REF www indiapost gov in." This has to be the RTI application fees I paid. In 15 years of making RTI applications, many to SEBI, I have never had this happen. And I don't know what to make of this. I do realize that in Sept 2018 I made the exact same query to SEBI, and never received an answer. I don't know if now SEBI has suddenly discovered that old query and RTI application fees payment, and is therefore returning this INR 11. This would be a kind interpretation, but inconsistent with SEBI's usual attitude. On the other hand I wonder if this is a novel way of rejecting a query. The query itself is very simple, asking SEBI to update the data it solemnly promised to provide in response to a Rajya Sabha question by Shyam Benegal, intended to provide stale historical-archival FII transaction data that is available from https://www.sebi.gov.in/statistics/fpi-investment/trade-wise-equity-data-of-fpi.html. This data is used by academics for research purposes. SEBI was supposed to allow a lag of no more than 3 months. That was never honoured but it did occasionally update allowing a lag of no more than a year. But since July 2017 there has been no update at all, So now the lag is more than 30 months. FYI, over the past few years, depending strictly on the luck of the draw (I don't know of any systematic reason) sometimes SEBI has updated on its own. Sometimes it has updated upon receiving an RTI query. Sometimes it has just ignored the whole query, and the SEBI First Appeal has proved to be only an obscene joke. My second appeals are languishing for years at CIC. Please help. What should I do? The 30-day period is not yet over (runs till 5th Feb 2020). Attaching a copy of my RTI query. Best, Murgie Krishnan for_RTIInfdia.org to_SEBI_RTI_Query_re_FPI_data_6th_Jan_2020.pdf
  2. [h=1]Bombay HC relief for Sebi chief in assets case[/h] The Bombay High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to declare the assets and income of its chairman, U K Sinha. In an order pronounced on Friday, the court remanded the matter to CIC. “All contentions of both parties are kept open. The Commission shall expeditiously decide the said appeal after giving personal hearings to the parties,” said the order. The decision followed the Sebi counsel pointing out though the CIC order (passed in November 2014) was contrary to its earlier order, no reasons were assigned as to why it was necessary to disclose this information in larger public interest and “how the reasons given by the commission in its earlier order dated November 6, 2012, were incorrect”. In December, Sebi had moved the court after CIC reversed its earlier decision and directed Sebi to declare “(a)the assets and liabilities statement of U K Sinha, chairman, Sebi, for the past three years, or for the period declared by him; and (b) the total present emoluments, along with perquisites on which he has been employed with Sebi”. The commission found an appeal in this regard to be a “fit case, in which the requested information should be disclosed in larger public interest”. In an order dated November 28, a CIC bench said, “We are inclined to allow the disclosure of the requested information. The respondent is directed to provide the information sought in para 2 (a) and (b) to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ” In an appeal to the court, Sebi said the petitioner required these details in relation to a public interest suit filed by a Bengaluru-based lawyer, Arun Kumar Agrawal, challenging Sinha’s appointment as Sebi chief, adding “this issue was concluded by the observations made by the apex court”. The high court said the petitioner was also of the view that the CIC should have stated the reasons in this regard. “He, however, submitted that instead of remanding the matter back, the matter may be decided by this court,” it added. Read More: Bombay HC relief for Sebi chief in assets case | Business Standard News
  3. PIL AGAINST SEBI FOR ILLEGAL TELEPHONE TAPS Reported by Raja Chaudhary in cobrapost.com on April 06,2013 News Detail The Mumbai High Court has directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to file its reply within 3 weeks on a PIL charging them of asking for Call Data Records (CDRs) of 2327 subscribers, illegally, through various telecom service providers since 2009. Moreover, when information was sought in this regard through an RTI, SEBI furnished wrong details in its reply in violation of the RTI Act of 2005. The case came up for hearing on March 3, 2013 after a PIL was filed by the Indian Council of Investors in March this year. For many years now, the SEBI has been monitoring CDRs of thousands of people along with the tower locations of these phone user – all this illegally, with the help of various telecom service providers in the country. When confronted by an ardent RTI activist, SEBI even went so far as to submit false statistics to hide its conduct. SEBI has been routinely seeking sensitive telecom data of more than 2000 subscribers from various telecom service providers illegally despite the fact that SEBI does not figure in the list of authorized agencies of the Government of India which can seek details or intercept telephone calls, both inward and outward. SEBI officials have been particularly very aggressive collecting this information in the past three years. What is shocking is that this kind of information is being called even in cases where SEBI Board has not even initiated investigation. What is even more harrowing is the fact that there is no control mechanism in SEBI as to who should, if at all, ask for this data. Even junior most officials randomly ask for CDR details through simple letters and emails. This can only be done under specified circumstances by authorized agencies and for a limited period, as and when required, only for safeguarding national interest. What’s more interesting is the fact that in 2010, SEBI approached two authorized agencies, namely, Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) to help in monitoring of two telephone numbers, as advised by the Ministry of Home Affairs. But According to an internal note of SEBI, both the departments failed to provide the details. In the note, the then SEBI Chairman C.B. Bhave says: “SEBI has requested DRI and ED to obtain and provide the CDRs required in two major investigation cases. We have been unsuccessful in obtaining the data. Routing of SEBI request through designated agencies has not proved effective.” In a communique, sent by Bhave to the Secretary of the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, on May 12, 2009, SEBI has even admitted that they do not have the requisite permission to access telephone call records from telecom service providers. Bhave says: “As per extant procedures the telephone agencies share their Call Data Records only with law enforcement agencies specifically authorized by Department of Telecommunications. Similarly Internet Service Providers are also obliged to disclose e mail records only to those agencies specifically included in the list approved by Government. SEBI is not on the list of such approved agencies.” It can be done only through government agencies like the ED in special cases that too with approval of the Ministry of Finance. However, SEBI has also admitted in an RTI reply that they have accessed call details of 2327 subscribers from various telecom service provides, which means that the call details were illegally accessed by SEBI. It is pertinent to mention here that in such case of illegal monitoring of telephone calls of senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley, on February 14, 2013, four persons were arrested and denied bail. The access to this kind of sensitive information has been restricted by the Government of India to designated agencies which can do so only according to the procedures laid down, as the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632]. Moreover, SEBI, when asked through an RTI how many telephones are being intercepted provided wrong details in written which in itself is a crime under RTI Act, 2005. The RTI activist from Mumbai filed an application on August 23, 2010 with SEBI, seeking information on the total number of telephone/mobile connections in respect of which Call Data Record (CDR) was sought by SEBI from various telecom service providers. The information was sought in respect to only the total number of phones that were being intercepted, and no personal details such as names, addresses, telephone numbers or names of service provider were sought. However, on September 21, 2010, SEBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Anil Kumar Sharma refused to disclose the information, even the number of phones put on the loop, stating that disclosing the requested information would impede the ongoing process of investigation/enquiry and therefore such information is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Sharma says: “The information sought by you is strategic in nature. The disclosure of the same will impede the ongoing process of investigation/enquiry conducted by SEBI and therefore disclosure of such information is exempted under the RTI Act.” Not satisfied with the reply, the activist filed an appeal on October 20, 2010 before Prashant Saran, Whole Time Member and Appellate Authority of SEBI, urging him to direct the SEBI officials to provide him only the number of telephone records being sought by SEBI from various service providers. On November 18, 2010, Saran issued direction to the CPIO to provide the information to the activist within one month. Saran says, “SEBI ought to collect and compile the data from different divisions and various files. I direct SEBI to provide the information to the activist within one month from the receipt of this order.” Shockingly, the activist received a letter on December 7, 2010 from the then CPIO of SEBI, S.V Krishnamohan, which stated: “This is to inform you that call records were sought for a total of 13 numbers. Call details of 5 numbers are yet to be received from the service providers.” As it was hard to believe that SEBI was tracking only 13 telephone numbers, the activist filed another application on December 20, 2010 requesting complete and correct information. On the same day itself, he filed another RTI application seeking the copies of internal file noting dealing with his application, copies of replies received by the CPIO, from various departments of SEBI, and copies of CPIO’s compilation of the information received. On December 21, 2010, the activist again received a letter from the CPIO in which Sharma says: “The total number of subscribers for which information has been sought is 2327.” SEBI admitted that it had called for CDR of 2327 subscribers, instead of 13 subscribers only as stated earlier by the then CPIO Krishnamohan, proving that the reply given by the CPIO at that time was incorrect and was an attempt to fudge the information. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Government of India has laid down norms and procedures with respect to the enforcement agencies which can intercept telephonic communications and seek details of same. The interception and seeking of details can be resorted to only by the authorized agencies, only under certain circumstances as laid down as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: on occurrence of any public emergency, interest of public safety, interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign states, public order and preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. It is pertinent to mention here since 2009, SEBI has been requesting to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Home affairs to get included in the list of Law Enforcement Agencies which has powers to summon CDRs from service providers through the then SEBI Chairman C.B. Bhave. In one such letter, Dave urges: “Given the complexity of modern financial crimes, I would like to reiterate that it is vital for SEBI to have the powers to call for call/electronic data records. I should also emphasize that what we have sought is not the power to tap or intercept calls/electronic data flows, but only the powers to call for such data from the service providers as this becomes necessary for our investigation.” According to documents, both the government departments have turned down their request several times. Instead SEBI was asked to seek CDR details through Department of Revenue Intelligence or Enforcement Directorate. The RTI activist further claims that the SEBI officials have been asking for call data records of a large number of subscribers from telecom service providers every month. Most of the telecom service providers have been submitting the CDR information to SEBI; however, some of them have refused to give this information citing the legal provisions. The fact that SEBI has, till date, not initiated a single action against any telecom service provider who has refused to part with CDRs of its subscribers is a clear pointer towards the fact that SEBI actually does not have power to call for this data. Now, The Indian Council of Investors, a company formed to safeguard the interest of the investors, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Bombay High Court in March this year against the illegal tracking of telephones and wrongful disclosure of facts under RTI Act. The case came up for hearing on April 3, 2013. The court has directed SEBI to file its reply within three weeks.- See more at: News Detailf
  4. As reported in business-standard.com on 15 October 2011: http://business-standard.com/india/news/quasi-judicial-proceedingsin-ril-insider-trading-case-sebi/452649/ Quasi-judicial proceedings on in RIL insider trading case: Sebi The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has said quasi-judicial proceedings are in progress in the 2007 Reliance Petroleum case and entities involved have filed for settlement by consent. The statement came while dismissing an appeal on an RTI query, asking details of action taken on a complaint against Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) by a Member of Parliament. “Investigation with respect to the dealings in the shares of Reliance Petroleum during November 2007 was conducted, quasi-judicial proceedings are in progress against certain entities and consent applications have also been received from all entities,” the regulator said in its response to the RTI query by P C Srivastava. This is the first such official statement by Sebi in the three-year case, wherein RIL allegedly made unlawful gains in excess of Rs 513 crore. The details of the RTI query and the response were part of the order dismissing the appeal by Srivastava. In his appeal, Srivastava alleged “Sebi is trying to defend and protect (Mukesh) Ambani’s RIL and that it has been doing so right from the beginning because of pressure from the Union finance minister, etc.” He said the details of investigation were not provided. He had sought the complete details of investigation and consent applications, the provisions under the Sebi Act for consideration of consent applications and other provisions of punishment for such offence, etc. Prashant Saran, whole time member, Sebi, said, “I find that these fresh requests and grounds for information can’t be allowed to be urged at appellate levels. I also do not find any reason that would warrant their admittance.”
  5. As reported by G Saravanan in expressbuzz.com on 07 Oct 2011: http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/SEBI-dillydallying-on-activist?s-RTI-plea/320779.html SEBI dillydallying on activist’s RTI plea CHENNAI: Despite the Central Information Commission’s clear-cut order to provide details sought under RTI by a Chennai-based activist, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has been dillydallying and provided only half the information, just to comply with the CIC’s order. With the National Stock Exchange (NSE) not covered under the RTI Act, R Natarajan, a city-based research scholar and RTI activist, had moved an application with SEBI. The board being the regulator of stock exchanges, he had asked for details about transactions between Chennai-based Kass Securities and NSE, after the former mismanaged his friends’ fund deposit in the form of shares for brokering to the tune of Rs 34 lakh. It all started in 2008 when Natarajan approached the NSE for getting his friends’ (Mohini Devi and Prahalad Rai) fund that was mismanaged by Kass Securities, a registered brokering firm with NSE. As the NSE was reluctant to take up his case, Natarajan approached the NSE-appointed Arbitration Committee and got an award in his favour in 2009. Despite the clear order from its own Arbitration Committee that ordered NSE to give back the Rs 34 lakh to Natarajan’s friends, NSE dillydallied on his plea and the delay has forced him to take the RTI route to unearth the transactions between Kass Securities and NSE that led to mismanagement. Despite his repeated RTI pleas, both the public information officer and the appellate authority of SEBI gave evasive and ambiguous replies.Irked over the denial of information, Natarajan moved the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which in turn ordered the SEBI to provide him the photocopy of the complaints and footnotes pertaining to Kass Securities and NSE. “Instead of providing me the documents mentioned in the order, SEBI provided me some documents which even do not have any signature or footnotes,” Natarajan said. “Though the SEBI is now claiming that they complied with the CIC’s order, the information provided are not full and I am planning to move further appeal,” Natarajan added.
  6. Dear All: I am a newbie to this site, so am not sure what to post and share on this forum relating to my (so far frustrating) RTI experiences. In what follows I am giving some details about one experience, and can post more based on what feedback I get. I am an academic with a research interest in Indian financial markets, for which much of my data has come from the National Stock Exchange (which now makes available, at nominal cost, enormous detail relating to STALE DATA, to support academic research). SEBI currently makes publicly available aggregate FII data on a daily basis but only about the aggregate across all exchange-traded scrips. For many meaningful research questions it would be more useful to have a little more detail -- this data broken down by each exchange-traded scrip. So in one RTI request to SEBI I sought STALE FII DATA broken down by exchange-traded scrip. It was rejected on grounds that to me seem incredibly frivolous (e.g. "invasion of privacy", when we're only asking for the aggregate to be broken down by each exchange-listed scrip, and not by each FII, or each trade; "market-sensitive" when all we're asking for is STALE data like the kind that NSE provides). I filed an appeal, which has also been rejected. It turns out that the Appellate Officer at SEBI is basically a retired bank official enjoying a post-retirement sinecure, and he essentially just accepted whatever the SEBI CPIO said, and didn't even think it necessary to give us a chance to pose any questions. The 90-day period for the final appeal to CIC is coming soon (hence this post) and I was wondering if anyone had ideas or suggestions. I have PDF files of the original RTI request, the CPIO's response, my first appeal, and of the Appellate Officer's note. I wasn't sure it was appropriate to clog this site with all of that, as the details may be of interest only to a few. But the request itself is I think easy reading, and can give one some insight into elementary data requests are stonewalled, despite stock exchanges and regulators in many parts of the world now routinely giving even more detailed information than we have sought (and this includes the National Stock Exchange in India, which is under SEBI jurisdiction). The logic behind this in every case has been that academic research into financial markets is deemed to be in the public interest. Please let me know, on this forum, or via private email to [##### live email link deleted to prevent spam ######], if you would like to see the original request, response, appeal, etc, or if it is appropriate for me to post those, or if you have any other suggestion, idea or comment. Thank you. Best, Murgie Krishnan PS -- My other frustrating SEBI-related RTI experience has to do with trying to seek its help relating to Bombay Stock Exchange data. That effort is a little more complicated to describe, as it began long BEFORE the RTI Act, with a writ petition against BSE and SEBI in the Bombay High Court, which ruled in our favour in February 2005. But we haven't got one whit closer to getting the ruling implemented since then. Because of a very peculiar set of meetings and responses from BSE (some of which had implications relating to SEBI's regulation) I tried using the RTI Act to get at least some help from SEBI in the matter. At SEBI, this RTI request has also had the same dismal history.
  7. As reported at economictimes.indiatimes.com on 8 MAY, 2011 NEW DELHI: A former member of SEBI has alleged that the board of the securities market regulator "abused" its powers to protect the then Chairman C B Bhave from being subjected to any independent inquiry with "respect to his actions as NSDL Chairman" during the IPO Scam , which related to irregularities in share allotment in various initial public offers (IPOs) between 2003 and 2006. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the then member SEBI G Mohan Gopal wrote, "As an outgoing (part time, independent) member of the SEBI Board, I write to convey my strong concern about the gross abuse of power and corrupt practices in the SEBI Board over last two years to protect SEBI Chairman C B Bhave from being subjected to independent inquiry with respect to his actions as Chairman of NSDL during IPO Scam". The letter written on December 24, 2010 has been made public by the Prime Minister's Office in an RTI reply to activist S C Agrawal. The PMO has said it has forwarded the letter to the Finance Ministry for further action. When contacted, Bhave decline to give his comments. The Finance Ministry also said, in its RTI reply dated April 8, 2011, that it has forwarded the letter to the SEBI for its comments and even sent three reminder letters but no reply has come. The finance ministry had set up a committee consisting of two SEBI members--G Mohan Gopal, now the National Judicial Academy director, and V Leeladhar-- to look into the IPO scam. The committee had passed three orders and found that NSDL had failed in its duty. It had also passed remarks against the manner in which SEBI had functioned during the scam days. Mohan Gopal, in his letter to the Prime Minister, has alleged that his "objections to illegal and unethical actions" did not elicit any response in the board and he was "isolated and threatened" for the same. "I brought issues to the attention of the Finance Secretary at an early stage, to no avail mainly because the representatives of the Ministry of Finance on SEBI Board (no longer with the Ministry of Finance) was an active part of developing and implementing the impugned actions," he wrote. NSDL was given clean chit last year by SEBI when C B Bhave was its chairman. Bhave had recused himself from the SEBI board meeting in February 2010, when NSDL matter was discussed, as he had previously headed the depository. The Supreme Court had asked SEBI to reply whether it would revisit its decision to give a clean chit to NSDL ( National Securities Depository )) in the 2006 IPO scam. The apex court had expressed concern over SEBI's outright rejection of the report, and had asked the market regulator to give its stand. It had remarked that as the committee comprised senior SEBI officials, the report should have been considered by the regulator. The apex court was also not convinced by the submissions of SEBI that the committee exceeded its limit. Curiously, the SEBI did a U-turn in the Supreme Court last week when it filed an affidavit agreeing to restore orders indicting Bhave in the IPO Scam. In an affidavit filed on May 5, the SEBI said it would reconsider the very orders it had declared as non est in November 2009 when Bhave was Chairman.
  8. As reported by rajesh Gajra in mydigitalfc.com on 05 September 2010: Sebi dismisses more RTI queries in FY10 | mydigitalfc.com Sebi dismisses more RTI queries in FY10 The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) saw a year-on-year increase of eight per cent in applications for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, during FY10, as per its annual report released recently. There was a higher y-o-y increase of 15 per cent cases of dissatisfied RTI applicants filing appeals with Sebi’s appellate authority (AA) against replies by Sebi’s central public information officer (CPIO). The increase was still higher in the AA-dismissed cases being appealed with against CCIC (see table). The RTI cases involved matters concerning Sebi’s own actions and data, as well as cases seeking Sebi to extract information about third-party entities, who generally are stock market intermediaries such as brokers. In the latter cases, Sebi rejected every RTI query contending it was not obli*ged to collect information from intermediaries on request from a RTI applicant. The same reason was given in a recent dismissal dated August 17 by Sebi’s current AA, Prashant Saran. But, in his ruling, Saran also stated the CIC had ruled in affirmative on the question of Sebi accessing information from exchanges and brokers under its regulatory control for the sole purpose of providing the same to RTI applicants. He rejected the investor's appeal saying Sebi had got a stay in the Bombay HC against the CIC’s ruling.
  9. Atul Patankar

    Is Stock Exchange a Public Body?

    As reported by Anshika Mishra at dnaindia.com on 27 July 2009 Mumbai: The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) has once again moved the Bombay High Court seeking to avoid sharing "confidential" information with the public. .art_img_class {width:200px;background:#f0f0f0;margin-top:1em;font-size:0.7em;display:none;} The bourse had last year moved the HC challenging an earlier order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing it to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. BSE had argued that stock exchanges are not "public authorities", which are covered by the RTI Act. While the courts are still to decide whether BSE is covered by the RTI Act, an ex-BSE member ingeniously filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to get information regarding disbursal of funds by the BSE from the IPF. The applicant, Yogesh Mehta, made an RTI application to Sebi last September. He stated that the information sought by him regarding disbursal of money under the IPF since 1995 was in the larger public interest. The market regulator then forwarded Mehta's application to BSE and asked it to provide the relevant information. The BSE replied that it could not entertain Mehta's application because if Sebi were to obtain information from those it regulates and make it available to a third party, it would effectively extend the provisions of the RTI Act even to those that are not a public authority. Sebi's appellate authority ruled against BSE, which then went to the CIC. On May 27, 2009, the CIC order also went against BSE as it directed Sebi to obtain the requisite information from BSE and disclose it to Mehta. Sebi has challenged the May 27 CIC order in the HC. Sebi has argued that the confidential information that Mehta cannot get directly from BSE cannot be indirectly sought through Sebi. Its petition stated that if a third party is allowed to apply to a public authority for information relating to a private body, over which it exercises regulatory control and expect that public authority to collect that information and provide it to him, then the RTI Act would be turned into a right to harass private organisations. It has also challenged the power of the CIC to direct Sebi to obtain information under the Sebi Act to provide it to a third party. The HC last week asked CIC, Sebi and Mehta to file their replies. The matter will be heard in September. To disclose or not An ex-BSE member ingeniously filed an application with the Sebi to get information regarding disbursal of funds by the BSE from the Investor Protection Fund. Sebi has argued that the confidential information that Mehta cannot get directly from BSE cannot be indirectly sought through Sebi Source: Is stock exchange a public body?
  10. As reported at economictimes.indiatimes.com on 15 May 2009 MUMBAI: Market regulator SEBI on Friday said it is not obliged to obtain information from stock exchanges for sharing it with the public under the Right to Information Act. "SEBI Act gives powers to SEBI to obtain information for certain purposes and not for obtaining such information from the exchange for the sole purpose of providing the same to the appellant," said SEBI's Appellate Authority formed under the RTI Act. The appellate authority made these observations while dismissing an appeal by one Mamta Sahu who sought information from SEBI under the RTI Act about the grounds for delisting of 240 companies by BSE and also sought to know reasons for not delisting six companies. After initial denial of information by Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SEBI, Sahu filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority and pleaded that SEBI Act gives enough powers to the regulator to obtain information from stock exchanges. The order further said that "it is not in order for the appellant to keep on asking (for) the same information by filing another application and then filing an appeal therein time and again". Source: SEBI not obliged to get facts from exchanges for public- Indices-Markets-The Economic Times
  11. Under RTI I have asked Client / Broker wise position for one scrip from SEBI. However it was denied under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.can they denied this and if yes can I compel them to provide the information in public interest?
  12. As reported by Palak Shah in business-standard.com on 10 March 2009: Share transfer agents under Sebi scanner Share transfer agents under Sebi scanner Share transfer agents (STAs) have come under the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (Sebi) scanner after the market regulator received several complaints about their misconduct. According to sources, Sebi started surveying STAs after it was found that some of them were continuing their operations even after their registrations expired. As per the law, any lending, borrowing, buying, selling or share transfer activity can be carried out only by "Sebi-approved intermediaries". This means that a registration certificate has to be obtained from Sebi to operate in the capital markets, and it has to be renewed at regular intervals. In fact, in order to give a strong message to STAs violating Sebi laws, the regulator has dragged Calcutta-based AMI Computers to court for fraudulently operating as an STA. The appeal was filed by Sebi recently with the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai. Most of the Sebi cases are settled through consent or adjudication orders, and Sebi rarely initiates criminal proceedings that drag the erring party to court, where it could attract a jail term of up to 10 years or a fine, or both. CRACKING THE WHIP * Sebi started surveying share transfer agents (STAs) after it was found that some of them were continuing their operations even after their registrations had expired * As per the law, any lending, buying, selling or share transfer activity can be carried out only by ‘Sebi-approved intermediaries’ * This means that a registration certificate has to be obtained from Sebi to operate in the capital markets, and it has to be renewed at regular intervals AMI Computers was banned by Sebi in October 2007 on charges of operating as an STA even after the required registration had expired for over a year. Criminal proceedings against AMI Computers and its directors Ratan Kumar Mishra, Kundal Mal Jain, V K Jain, Kundan Mal Banthia and G S Prasad were initiated by Sebi on persistent efforts by Right to Information Act (RTI) activist Satish Chaudhary. The fact that unregistered STAs were conducting their business in the markets came to light when Chaudhary first informed Sebi in 2007 about the fraudulent activities of AMI Computers, which was then acting as an STA to Mumbai-based firm Maikaal Fibres, as well as T&I Global and NICCO UCO Alliance Credit. "When I wrote some letters to AMI Computers in 2007 seeking details on demat of Mikaal Fibres, there was no response from them. On making further inquiries, it was found that they were carrying out activities arbitrarily on their own, even after their registration as an STA had expired a year ago in September, 2006," Chaudhary said. Under the RTI Act, Chaudhary had also sought to know the name of the Sebi officer who was then incharge of looking into the matter, and who should have been responsible for knowing that AMI Computers was still operating even a year after its registration had expired in 2006. But the market regulator rejected the RTI application. An appeal in this regard has now been filed with the Chief Information Commission in New Delhi, which presides over RTI cases. Meanwhile, the Mumbai police's Economic Offence Wing has also written to Sebi, asking for details about the case and the name of the Sebi official who was incharge of STA registrations and their renewals.
  13. As reported by Palak Shah in business-standard.com on 09 February 2009: First Global uses RTI to set the record straight First Global uses RTI to set the record straight Eight years after it was indicted by the market regulator for “profiting from advance knowledge” of news website Tehelka’s market-moving exposés, brokerage house First Global says it has procured documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act that show how the regulator fabricated a case against it. The documents obtained by First Global from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) show that the brokerage’s name does not figure in the list of the top-50 sellers from mid-February to mid-March 2001, the period which was investigated by the regulator to determine the cause of the market crash in that period. The Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitive Index had fallen 177 points on March 3, 2001, wiping out nearly Rs 35,000 crore of market capitalisation. The charges against First Global were serious — On September 12, 2002, Sebi cancelled the registration of First Global Stockbroking as a broker and portfolio manager after the regulator held it responsible for the stock market crash on March 2, 2001. The action against First Global became a political controversy because 10 days after the crash, Tehelka.com ran a series of exposés on a defence deal scandal that nearly brought down the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government and led to the resignation of the then Defence Minister George Fernandes. First Global held 14.5 per cent stake in Buffalo Networks Pvt Ltd, the company that owned Tehelka.com. Shankar Sharma, First Global’s director and chief global trading strategist, was arrested three times, including once for allegedly threatening a law-enforcement officer. First Global appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), which set aside Sebi’s order on December 3, 2004. The point of argument of the case was the validity of Sebi’s order, as it was not passed within the regulated 30 days after considering the reply to a show-cause notice. The regulation that governs these orders originally said the Sebi board is “mandated to pass orders as soon as possible but not later than 30 days from the receipt of the reply to show-cause notice”. Coincidentally, in 2002, this regulation was modified with the words “as soon as possible” without a specific time limit. The tribunal had taken note of the fact that the then Sebi chairman G N Bajpai persistently refused First Global’s requests for an oral hearing along with its written submissions. Also, instead of dealing with the matter in accordance with the law, Sebi engaged a solicitor to send a lawyer’s notice to First Global's written replies. “This we find a little unusual in view of the fact that the enquiry was pending before Sebi. A regulator does not send lawyers’ notice when the matter is pending in enquiry,” SAT’s order had noted. When contacted, Sharma said his company had said from the first day that the investigation was “politically motivated, post the Tehelka exposé, and Sebi’s objective was to frame us by any means, however illegal”. Sharma said the same data was always available with Sebi, but the regulator refused to share it before the RTI Act was passed. “The documents procured under the RTI Act are clear and incontrovertible data-based evidence of how a so-called independent regulator acted at the behest of the powers that be,” he said, adding “Deliberate suppression of data is a serious moral and legal offence, and here the regulator itself has been guilty of that.” Bajpai did not comment on the issue when contacted on Friday evening and Saturday. When called on his mobile phone, Bajpai wanted to know the issue and said he would call back, but did not do so. He also did not reply to text messages explaining why Business Standard was trying to contact him. The Sebi order against First Global at that time cited the findings of Sebi's investigating officer who said Sharma used Nirmal Bang to trade. Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt Ltd figures prominently in the list of top sellers during the period that was under Sebi’s investigation. “The trading pattern of Shankar Sharma through Nirmal Bang and others were highly irregular and resulted in building up of concentrated positions to avoid detection. It is alleged that the circular trading between First Global and the Nirmal Bang Group for the proprietary trades of Shankar Sharma, have been structured by synchronising the order entry in the system with a view to manipulate the market,” the officer said. The Sebi order said First Global had indulged in large trading transactions in Global Telesystems, HFCL, DSQ Software, Zee Teleflims, Wipro, Satyam Computers, SSI and Sterlite Opticals with a view to artificially depress the prices of the scrips, which in turn was responsible for the market fall. The order said First Global adopted a pattern, which includes large carry forward sales, sales in these scrips on specific dates, sales in particular time slots when the scrip’s prices registered substantial fall, portfolio operations disguised as structured arrangements in the garb of arbitrage trades, routing of proprietary trades through non-descript unregistered sub-broker. This establishes a concerted attempt to manipulate the prices of the scrips. Sharma, however, said the Sebi order was against First Global and not against Shankar Sharma. “I traded through Nirmal Bang in my personal capacity to the tune of Rs 50 crore, which also includes buying and not only selling during 2001 and this was also disclosed. Several others apart from me also would have used Nirmal Bang to trade. Also, in those days there were trading and position limits on brokers and so most of them used other firms to trade. In his defence, Sharma also referred to an interview given by Goolam E Vahanvati, Sebi counsel at that time, in the recently released book Tehelka as Metaphor written by Madhu Trehan. Vahanvati, who was also the Advocate General of Maharashtra at that time, has been quoted in the book as saying he refused to appear on behalf of Sebi after one hearing as “his conscience didn’t allow him to continue”. Contacted by Business Standard, Vahanvati said he appeared for Sebi in the first case, but refused to do so in 2004 when the case was revived. “I found that Shankar Sharma was asked to show cause on the items that were not mentioned in the reports earlier,” he said. On whether he faced political pressure, Vahanvati said “I am not a political person and there was no pressure on me even when I decided not to appear for the case. Even now I do appear for Sebi in various cases. As an insider to the case, I know a lot of things, but as a true professional, I do not want talk to the media about the details of cases on which I am appearing.”
  14. As reported by Sandeep Parekh at blogs.livemint.com on January 23, 2009 Recall my previous posts on my Right to Information application to the securities regulator, SEBI, to disclose their Board agenda notes and minutes of the Board meetings. The information was denied, as not being available in the form sought. Here is my appeal which is self explanatory: "Mr. M S Sahoo SEBI Appellate Authority – RTI SEBI Bhavan C4A, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai 400051 23 January 2009 Dear Sir, 1. I am in receipt of a letter dated 2nd January 2009 in response to my RTI application dated 2nd December 2008. The letter states “The information sought by you is not available in the format as required by you”. A copy of the correspondence is attached as “Annexure A colly”. 2. My request for information was for the following in soft copy: “The Board Agenda items of SEBI from May 2008 to early December 2008. The final minutes of the SEBI Board meetings from May 2008 to early December 2008. Where final minutes are not available, the current draft may be sent.” 3. The reply given by the CPIO is not acceptable to me, because it seeks to misrepresent the factual position and seeks to deny easily available information without any stated reasons. I therefore seek to appeal against this ruling on the following grounds. A. The information is not furnished within the 30 days period allowed to the CPIO under S. 7(1). The period runs from the time of seeking of information not from the time of the payment of the fees. However, I waive my rights under this provision as there is a delay of only one day. B. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act specifically states that: “(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.” No assertion has been made about ‘disproportionate diversion of resources’ in the letter denying me the information in the form sought. A bald denial of information in the form sought without any rationale goes contrary to the explicit mandate of the parliament reflected in the Act. C. Further, this denial is an attempt to block sharing of information by a regulator, whose chief task is to introduce disclosure in the corporate field. This is a wholly inappropriate response even de hors the plain terms of the law and it deviates from the moral authority of the regulator to demand the highest standards from others while secreting its own information without reason or rationale. D. It is clear that the information is available in soft copy in the computers of the persons who have drafted the agenda items and the minutes of the Board meeting. This would be true unless, the Board has begun typing agenda items on manual typewriters in the recent past. Even if that were true, the CPIO will need to assert that converting the manual typewritten material cannot be converted to soft copies as it would disproportionately divert resources. No such assertion is made. E. On 31st December 2008, I received a reply from the CPIO’s office stating that “We are in the process of collecting information which will be furnished as soon as it is collected”. It is not clear what happened to this 29 days of information collection, where it is specifically stated that the information is being collected. F. The obvious mis-statement of the assertion that the information is not available in soft copy is directly belied by the fact that 2 days after my RTI application, the Board put out its December board minutes on its website in the very same format sought by me i.e. soft copy. See the agenda notes and minutes of the same on SEBI’s website: http://www.sebi.gov.in/boardmeetings/120bmho.html If this information was not available in soft format, how was it put up? G. I would also like to compare this secretive behaviour of the Indian regulator with the American position where the SEC's commission meetings are usually open - meaning that anyone can access the meetings including the press and the citizens and it is also webcast (available in archival form for old meetings). A brief agenda is published in advance as well. Some meetings are 'closed' because of investigation action etc which needs to be taken - here too, all SEC employees are allowed to sit through the meeting. H. By contrast, India's SEBI gives no access to agenda papers to anyone except for the Executive Directors and members of the Board. The meetings are held behind closed doors by members of the Board. These are policy based agendas rather than investigation based - there is therefore nothing sensitive in the agenda or the discussions. In fact specific market data and specific investigation data is never disclosed to the Board, thus there is no need for any closed door meetings at all (this is because of the nature of SEBI which has both non whole time and whole time members, a dichotomy which does not exist with the SEC). I. To get a webcast of the meeting and make them open to everyone would require introspection by the Board and a will to create transparency in its own functioning. Only then can SEBI rightly claim the moral high ground for enforcing transparency in publicly listed companies. This last point made is a suggestion for SEBI and does not form part of the appeal. 4. I therefore request you to reverse the unsustainable ruling of the CPIO and uphold the highest levels of transparency by the regulator. I also ask you to bring in transparency beyond the realm of this appeal, by introduction of webcasting of Board meetings. I am certain, citizens of the country would be happy to learn about the workings of the regulator and it could be an opportunity for the regulator to take the country’s citizens with them rather than seeing them as a threat. I waive my right to appear in person to present the appeal. Regards, Sandeep Parekh Copy: Correspondence between office of CPIO and myself. Source : Speaking transparency to power - SEBI and RTI - Initial Private Opinion
  15. krishna_bangalore

    Satyam Fraud

    After Satyam fraud does all the public listed company should also come under RTI act. What you think so??
  16. SEBI uses RTI platform to seek info from bourses as reported by Ashwin J Punnen, ET Bureau 4 Dec 2008 MUMBAI: Gaining access to information relating to the securities market will now be easier, with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) taking the view that it has the authority to seek information from stock exchanges for providing it to the public under the Right to Information Act (RTI). India’s main stock exchanges such as the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE) were reluctant to provide information saying they are not a public authority under RTI. A recent ruling by the appellate authority of the market regulator has stated that stock exchanges are bound to furnish information sought by the regulator even if it is for the RTI purpose. In a recent case, an individual sought information from Sebi under RTI on various issues relating to the stock market. The information sought included BSE’s compliance report on implementation of Sebi’s order, action taken by BSE in pursuance to the regulator’s letter, the amount transferred to and from the investor protection fund and the document giving the formula to arrive at close out price. While BSE said it did not have any objection to furnishing the required information to Sebi, it took the stand that the regulator cannot seek information from it for the purpose of providing it to citizens under the RTI Act. The BSE stand was that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act and Sebi was not required under the RTI Act to obtain information from the stock exchange and provide it to the public. The order issued by Sebi’s whole-time member MS Sahoo said: “The Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information to include information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force. The plain reading of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, read with powers of Sebi under securities laws, makes it clear that the regulator can access the information from BSE,” the order said. The stock exchanges had taken a stand that they are not covered under the RTI Act since they are not public body. Earlier, the Chief Information Commission (CIC) has said exchanges will come under the ambit of RTI, but the exchanges have challenged this order in the Bombay High Court, which has stayed the CIC order. SEBI uses RTI platform to seek info from bourses- Indices-Markets-The Economic Times
  17. dlbshree

    Getting Details from SEBI

    I would like to obtain information from SEBI list of companies who have not submitted financial results for 2007-08 to NSE & BSE on or before the stipulated period. Also list of broking forms punished for rigging & manipulating price on the first day of listing. Book building process is a failure in our country due to over pricing of issues by merchant Bankers. Why the price of an IPO should not be fixed in relation to book value of the company (or) sectors overall PE ratio.
  18. karira

    ONGC IPO: No shares, no refund

    As reported by Pranshu Sikka and Amol Dether on moneycontrol.com on 16 July 2008: Moneycontrol India :: News :: ONGC IPO: No shares, no refund :: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation :: Business :: ONGC,Oil and Natural Gas Corporation,IPO,Sebi,Navaratna,shares,Pranshu Sikka,Amol Dethe,CB Bhave ONGC IPO: No shares, no refund It was the NDA government's big gift to Indian investors -- a big bang Rs 10,000 crore public issue from Navaratna ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) in March 2004. But four years down the line, 200 investors still wait in vain for their refund or shares. Vikas Vij was among millions of hopeful investors who put their money in the ONGC IPO in March 2004. He paid Rs 45,250, but was allotted just 60 shares at Rs 712.50 per unit. The 60 shares were credited to his account, but it's been four years, and he's still waiting for the refund of Rs 2,500. "We have received a standard reply from them, which says they are checking and reconciling on their end," replies a miffed Vij. But at least Vikas got some shares. There are many others, who did not get any stocks in the initial allotment process. As per information obtained by CNBC-TV18 from Sebi (Securities and Exchange Board of India) through the Right to Information Act, the regulator received 7,165 complaints regarding the ONGC IPO. Of these, 195 complaints pertaining to refund or allotment are still pending. Although, Sebi did not provide a break up, many among these 195 pending cases are complaints of non-receipt of shares. Sources say SEBI has written to ONGC, demanding a clarification on the pending refunds. Some time ago, Sebi had also pulled up registrar MCM, and prohibited it from taking any fresh business for two weeks, for mis-managing the ONGC IPO. Prithvi Haldia, CEO of Prime Database, said, "Under no circumstance, no investor can be punished for their action. In this IPO, investors have a huge loss either not getting shares or not getting refund order and it is surprisingly taken four years and still these complaints remain." We also learn that current Sebi Chairman CB Bhave has taken a stringent view of the entire situation. After all, investors who were dealt a bad hand in the IPO process have had to sustain staggering losses, even if notional ones. Though the share is trading much below its all time high of Rs 1385.05, each share would today still be worth Rs 1202.50, including the dividends and bonus -- that's a gain of 70% from the allotment price of Rs 712.50 per share. It's not known yet, whether ONGC has responded to Sebi's letter. But for Vikas and the others like him, the road to refunds is proving to be a long and testing one.
  19. bahl_ajay

    Sebi asked to pay RTI applicant

    As reported by Viju B | TNN http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOI/navigator.asp?Daily=CAP&login=default&AW=1214785133921 Sebi asked to pay RTI applicant CIC Says Mumbai-Based Yogesh Mehta Was Forced To Travel For Hearings Mumbai: This order will bring cheers to lakhs of RTI applicants across the country, especially those who incur huge travel and accommodation bills after they appear for numerous hearings at the Central Information Commission (CIC) in New Delhi. In a landmark order, the CIC has directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to compensate a Mumbai-based RTI applicant, Yogesh Mehta, who was forced to travel to Delhi and appear for five hearings at the CIC in the last one year. The CIC, while ordering a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the RTI applicant, said he had been forced to attend the hearings on several dates at his own cost. He suffered ‘‘avoidable expenditure’’ in doing so, it said. Ironically, Mehta’s two-yearold struggle with Sebi to gather information about a case of missing shares from the custody of the Bombay Stock Exchange defaulter committee through two RTI queries, met with little success as Sebi officials replied to him that the matter was subjudice. Though he decided to withdraw the CIC appeals, he urged the commission to consider his complaints against Sebi, as the incomplete information provided by Sebi’s PIO reached him after a delay of 58 days. The RTI Act says that penalty can be imposed on the Public Information Officer if there is a delay of more than 30 days in providing the information which comes under the ambit of the Act. During the final hearing, the Sebi on its part said that the delay was not intentional as the required information was not readily available with the agency and had to be obtained from BSE. The Sebi also said that the information pertained to several transactions had to be collected and coalesced and this is the cause of delay. The CIC, after perusing the records and hearing the submission, decided no penalty need to be imposed for the delay that had occurred in providing the information and said that it came within the ambit of reasonable cause under section 20 (1) of the Act. However the information commissoner, A N Tiwari, who passed the order said that he cannot ingnore the fact that the delay went against an applicant’s rightful claim to get timely information . He is, therefore, entitled to a suitable compensation under section 19(8)(b) of the Act, the order said. Section 19(8)( b) of the RTI Act states that commission has powers to ask the public authority to compensate an applicant for loss. The CIC incidentally deals with RTI appeals against cen tral government institutions like income tax, customs, excise, CBI, Sebi and various other public sector departments. RTI activists welcomed the landmark order. The penalty will prove as a deterrent to various central government agencies who refuse to provide in formation citing frivolous excuses, they said. ‘‘If an RTI applicant wants to appear before the CIC, he will have to spent at least Rs 10,000 for travel and accommodation for hearing. He may appear once before the commission , but if there are further hearings, he may not appear as it may not be affordable to him,’’ said former IPS officer-turned-activist Y P Singh. He said the CIC should also take up written arguments instead of insisting that the applicant be present for hearing. The RTI Act clearly says that it is not mandatory that the applicant need to be present during the time of the appeal and the appeal can be disposed off upon the merit of the case, he said.
  20. Cases worth Rs 41L pending against telecom company As Reported in The Times of India 24 Jun 2008, ,TNN AHMEDABAD: An application under Right to Information (RTI) has revealed that there are 44 consumer cases pending against a private telecom company in various consumer forums in the state. And the financial implication of all these cases is estimated to be Rs 41.8 lakh. One Piyush Luktuke had, under RTI sought to know from the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) list of cases pending in the consumer courts of Gujarat against the telecom company. This along with the names of the parties and the amount claimed by them. Luktuke wanted this information made by the lead managers to the issue in the form of the due diligence certificate and filed with SEBI in 2007. SEBI's central public information officer (CPIO) replied that no such information was available with them other that those disclosed in the prospectus of the telecom company. This in pursuance of the SEBI's disclosure and investor protection (DIP) guidelines. After explaining to Luktuke the disclosure obligation of the company under the due diligence clause, the CPIO stated that as per the Red Herring Prospectus of the company, there were 44 consumer cases pending against it before various consumer forums in Gujarat, whose total financial implication of was estimated to be Rs 41.8 lakh. The appellate authority of SEBI upheld the actions of the CPIO and stated that Luktuke had raised an additional point during his first appeal. This being an allegation regarding the non-compliance of DIP guidelines by lead managers to the issue of the telecom company, which was not entertained by SEBI. Before the Central Information Commission (CIC) Luktuke argued that SEBI could have obtained this information either from the service provider or their lead manager. But according to him they chose to arbitrarily deny his claim under RTI and termed this as deemed - refusal of information. But on going through Luktuke's petition, CIC wondered how and why he wishes to challenge SEBI's findings who appeared to have given accurate information with regards the original RTI application. Stating that on the basis of 'sketchy' submissions made it was not possible to interfere with the SEBI orders, CIC disallowed Luktuke's appeal. Cases worth Rs 41L pending against telecom company-Ahmedabad-Cities-The Times of India
  21. The echoes of the delisting of 1,000 companies by the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) in 2004 have not died down and in January, the Central Information Commissioner will be hearing the second appeal under the Right to Information Act regarding inadequate information given by the BSE to the Midas Touch Investors Association on this issue. According to the association secretary, Virendra Jain, over one million investors have lost their money because these 1,000 companies have been delisted. They have not been informed of their situation either before or after the delisting process. This says, Mr Jain has dealt a severe blow to investor’s confidence. Why the hurry? Of the 1,000 companies, around 400 were delisted as they were not found at their registered offices as per the records. Mr Jain says that the delisting of these companies even while the joint coordination monitoring committee (CMC) was looking into the vanishing companies was against investor interest. Where was the hurry to delist them, he asks. About 800 first information reports (FIRs) have already been filed with the police against the promoters and directors of 75 companies so the BSE should not have been in a hurry to delist them. Information deficieny The Midas Touch Investors Association had under the Right to Information Act asked the BSE for information on the orders passed by it in the delisting of 1,000 companies, the names of the person who passed the orders and the dates of such orders, and the grounds on which they were delisted. A shareholder/investor cannot appeal against the delisting order if he does not have the details of the order. Unless investors have the details of the full procedure followed for delisting, they would not know if the procedure has been adhered to or the decision was taken arbitrarily. The other information asked for under the RTI was, "what action did the Bombay Stock Exchange and Sebi take before and after the delisting to protect the interests of the investors, who are the small, minority shareholders in these companies." The answers that the Association received were not satisfactory and were incomplete so they wrote back without any luck. Sebi merely passed on what information was given to it by the BSE. Business News
  22. This is related to the thread on my request to SEBI for FII data (http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/1604-sebi-fii-data-question-regarding-what-post-site-relating-frustrating-rti-experience.html). I've just received the attached Notice of Hearing which asks me to be in Bombay at 10.30am on Wed, April 30, 2008, for the final hearing. (Given the delay that is evident from the CIC website, I suspect that subject matter has something to do with this relatively short lag since filing my appeal.) I am writing to ask for help I may need from someone in Bombay, who may also have an interest in the same matter, in case I am unable to attend the hearing myself. Since the SEBI officials are located in Bombay, and I had said in an earlier email I could be in Bombay in late April, they've scheduled the hearing for 11am, on Wed, April 30, 2008, through videoconference at the NIC site in Bombay. Even if I do come home in late April I have to get back to to the US to teach by April 29, so I've asked for a reconsideration of the date. If for some reason CIC cannot reschedule -- and they are so overburdened right now I can't blame them -- I will need to find a proxy to be present in my place. To be prepared for that I am writing to as many people as I can to find someone who will have the time and the interest to attend a hearing at 10.30am on April 30, 2008, in Bombay. An academic who is also hungry for the same FII data would be ideal. But the matter itself is certainly not rocket science, the facts are all very elementary, and even someone merely sympathetic to academic research, and who can make some time will do. The matter does not require a lawyer or a journalist -- whatever understanding of the RTI Act 2005 is needed for this matter I am sure I can provide (and this site can help many times more). In case you can think of a name of someone who may be able and willing to help, please let me know. Remember, once the FII data is available, it is available to all. (The history of the matter viewed from my end -- my initial request, SEBI's denial, my appeal, SEBI's subsequent denial, and my appeal filed with the CIC -- is now public information, and available on this website on the original thread referenced above.) Any other ideas, comments, suggestions, welcome. Best, Murgie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Murgie Krishnan Date: Dec 4, 2007 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Hearing through Video Conferencing on 30.4.2008 at 11:00 AM To: DC Singh Dear Shri DC Singh: Ref -- Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01251 On Wed, April 30, 2008, it is not feasible for me to be in Bombay, as I will have to be back in the US by April 29, to teach. The previous week, April 21-25, 2008, will be feasible, if I have to be in Bombay. On Wed, April 30, 11am will be 1.30am for me here in NJ the US. I CAN participate from home (through video over IP using software like SKYPE, which will however require that at the other end appropriate arrangements are made). Please let me know if you can consider some alternative to the arrangement stipulated in your notice of hearing. Else can I try and be represented by someone else on my behalf at this hearing through NIC in Bombay at 11am on April 30 in Bombay? (Since SEBI did not give me any opportunity to be heard even during the 1st appeal, despite my pleading for one, I am very keen to be present at a hearing myself at least now, so this alternative is LESS preferred. ) Please let me know what you can do with respect to the date of the hearing. I am very happy you have requested comments in advance on my appeal from the CPIO and Appellate Authority at SEBI, and directed them to furnish me a copy as well. Whether you will be able to monitor (before the hearing) if they do really send me a copy is a matter of some concern to me. I plan to send you email 3 weeks from now telling you if I have received any comments from SEBI on my appeal. Thank you for your time and attention. Best, Murgie Krishnan On Dec 4, 2007 6:30 AM, DC Singh wrote: Dear Mr. Murugappa (Murgie) Krishnan, This has reference to your e.mail dated 29.11.2007. The hearing in case no. CIC/AT/A/2007/01251 has been fixed through Video Conferencing on 30.4.2008 at 11:00 AM. Copy of notice is attached. Regards, D.C. Singh. from_CIC_Dec_4_2008_Hearing_Notice.doc
  23. RTI pushes Sebi to hand over files in IndiaBulls case Smita Deshmukh Thursday, October 11, 2007 07:22 IST Central Information Commission order forces regulator move MUMBAI: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) will soon issue an order relating to the handing over of files that deal with a ban imposed on Indiabulls Securities in April 27, 2006 by the capital market regulator, and its immediate withdrawal within 24 hours. This follows an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by YP Singh, a former IPS officer. While over 200 entities were banned by the market regulator, in what has now come to be called as the IPO scam, only Indiabulls was let scot-free the next day. The scam related to the connivance of broking entities and some others to corner large chunks of the retail portion of IPOs, using fictitious accounts. While agreeing to furnish all documents from Sebi’s side within a week, an official with the market regulator said that an order would be issued only after Indiabulls files its written objections to parting with its clients’ personal information. Singh and Indiabulls representatives were heard by VK Chopra from Sebi’s appellate authority, following an order from the Central Information Commission. Singh told DNA Money, “The disclosure of information is in the interest of lakhs of investors who have risked their life’s savings with Indiabulls. It will bring further accountability of public servants.” RTI activist Kewal Semlani, who argued on behalf of Singh, said, “There is a need to know what happened within those 18 hours to revoke the suspension. The need of overwhelming transparency and large public interest justifies parting with such information,” he added. It all began in February this year when the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Sebi, RK Nair, refused to grant information to Singh’s application, stating that investigations were still underway. Singh filed an appeal with Chopra, who upheld the CPIO argument. Following this, Singh appealed before the Central Information Commission last month. Indiabulls responded by objecting that disclosure of such information would seriously damage its functioning and reputation. Singh argues that the entire episode of imposing the ban and lifting it in the same breath, smacked of favouritism, producing newspaper clippings which reported how “high level interventions made the public authority change its position within 24 hours,” In its order, the Central Information Commission asked Sebi to examine the case by calling all parties involved and summoning all records. Meantime, rankled by the series of security checks he was subjected to before arriving for the hearing at the Sebi premises in Bandra-Kurla Complex, RTI activist Semlani observed: “Sebi is a watchdog to safeguard investors, but its own premises is totally inaccessible to them.” DNA - Money - RTI pushes Sebi to hand over files in IndiaBulls case - Daily News & Analysis
  24. New Delhi: The Central Information Commission has directed market regulator SEBI to re-examine its decision to deny information about observation cards on schemes of Birla Mutual Fund. Rejecting the contention of SEBI that information on observation cards cannot be shared with public, the CIC while hearing an RTI appeal, gave SEBI one month's time to re-examine the request of one Manoj Vyas who had sought information about schemes of the mutual fund house. Vyas, a resident of Mumbai, had sought copies of the Observation Cards that are communicated by the regulator to fund managers after examining their offer documents. The CIC, which was deliberating on whether such disclosures were exempt under the RTI Act, remitted the matter back to SEBI's Appellate Authority (AA) for a de-novo examination and asked for a reply within one month. The commission said SEBI's contention that furnishing the Observation Cards could harm commercial interest of Birla Mutual Fund was wrong. "What one notices in the present case is that the AA has mechanically accepted the third party's (Birla MF) objection and refused to divulge the information to Vyas," it said. The regulator while refusing to reveal the information had further stated that divulging details pertaining to its interaction with market players was fraught with the danger of upsetting the market. CIC asks SEBI to re-examine decision on RTI appeal -MF News-Mutual Funds-Money Matters-The Economic Times
  25. Hi I am looking for an RTI Application form for SEBI and Juchandra Sarpanch, Vasai. I tried to check in the websites but could not locate it. I would appreciate if somebody can give the application form or atleast give the link to it. Thanks
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy