{"id":219378,"date":"2019-09-10T18:30:56","date_gmt":"2019-09-10T13:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=219378"},"modified":"2019-09-20T12:29:51","modified_gmt":"2019-09-20T06:59:51","slug":"sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Securities and Appellate Tribunal (SAT):<\/strong> Tarun Agarwala, J. (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair, Member quashed an order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (\u2018SEBI\u2019) which imposed a ban on auditing firm, however, upheld the punitive damages awarded for wrongful gain.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the present case, the appellants being the auditing firm, Price Waterhouse Coopers (\u2018PWC\u2019) had challenged an order passed by the SEBI wherein a two-year ban was imposed on the firm from auditing any listed company due to its involvement in the 2009 Satyam Scam. The auditing firm had been the auditor of the Satyam Computers Services Limited (\u2018Satyam\u2019) during the period 2000-2009 and in the year 2009, the Chairman of Satyam stated that the books of accounts of Satyam were not true and the company was involved in large scale financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds. SEBI, upon an investigation of the books of Satyam, found out that PWC was the statutory auditor of the company and there were fabrication, falsification and misrepresentation in the books of account and financial statements of Satyam.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The senior counsels representing the appellants, Janak Dwarkadas along with Mukul Rohatgi questioned the jurisdiction of SEBI in banning an audit firm and submitted that the impugned order deals with the roles of an auditor and its contravention which are prescribed by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (\u2018ICAI\u2019) and thus, having the jurisdiction to deal with matter relating to contravention by audit firms. It was contended that as on the date of the impugned order there were new partners who were not partners of the firms during the period 2000 to 2009 and thus, banning them from doing audit work of listed Company merely because those are presently partners in PWC firms is wholly arbitrary and illegal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The senior advocates representing the respondents, Ravi Kadam being assisted by Kevic Setalvad, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality since the Satyam scam had a direct and adverse effect on the securities market. They also urged that failure to comply with the basic auditing standards constituted fraud and thus it was ideal to impose a ban on the auditing firm.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Appellate Tribunal upon perusal of facts and circumstances of the case stated that it was true that the network of firms under PWC alleged to have been involved in the scam was not under the PWC hence had no stake and vicarious liability of a chartered accountant cannot be extended to a firm. The Appellate Tribunal stated that <em>\u201cin the absence of any finding of connivance or collusion or intention or knowledge on the part of the ten firms in the audit of Satyam Computers, and in view of the clear cut directions of the Bombay High Court, no directions could have been issued by the Whole Time Member against the ten firms.\u201d<\/em> Dealing with the issue of jurisdiction the Tribunal said SEBI did not have any authority to look into the quality of audit and auditing services and it can only take remedial and preventative action. The direction issued is neither remedial nor preventive, but punitive in nature and thereby quashing the order passed by the SEBI. However, the Appellate Tribunal upheld SEBI\u2019s direction on disgorgement of Rs 13 crore from the auditor along with interest of 12% since 2007 for the wrongful gain.[Price Waterhouse &amp; Co. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0768b29A\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine SAT 165<\/b><\/a>, decided on 09-09-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Securities and Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Tarun Agarwala, J. (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair, Member quashed an order passed by <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":209781,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[37512,37510,37511,16791,20481,37513],"class_list":["post-219378","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-ban-on-auditing-firm","tag-price-waterhouse-coopers","tag-satyam-scam","tag-securities-and-exchange-board-of-india","tag-vicarious-liability","tag-wrongful-gain"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Securities and Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Tarun Agarwala, J. (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair, Member quashed an order passed by\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-09-10T13:00:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-09-20T06:59:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/\",\"name\":\"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-10T13:00:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-20T06:59:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld","og_description":"Securities and Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Tarun Agarwala, J. (Presiding Officer) and Dr C. K. G. Nair, Member quashed an order passed by","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-09-10T13:00:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-09-20T06:59:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/","name":"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","datePublished":"2019-09-10T13:00:56+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-20T06:59:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/10\/sat-sebis-two-year-ban-on-auditing-firm-pwc-quashed-however-penalty-amount-for-breach-of-duty-upheld\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SAT | SEBI\u2019s two-year ban on auditing firm PWC quashed; however, penalty amount for breach of duty upheld"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":263328,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/09\/can-sebi-proceed-against-a-chartered-accountant-for-lack-of-his-due-diligence\/","url_meta":{"origin":219378,"position":0},"title":"Can SEBI proceed against a Chartered Accountant for lack of his due diligence? SAT analyses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member) while addressing a matter whether a Chartered Accountant could be held guilty by SEBI for lack of due diligence, held that, Lack of due diligence can only lead to professional negligence which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203972,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/role-of-all-accused-in-the-matter-of-satyam-computer-services-ltd-found-to-be-different%e2%94%80-no-uniform-order-of-restrain-from-access-to-securities-market-can-be-given\/","url_meta":{"origin":219378,"position":1},"title":"Satyam Case |SEBI reduces period of restraint order from accessing in securities market","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Exchange Board of India, Mumbai: The present case was remanded to SEBI from the order of Securities Appellant Tribunal before G. Mahalingam (Whole Time Member). The question before SEBI was how to compute disgorgement amount based on inputs provided by the noticees and the period for which the noticees\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":221994,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/13\/evolution-of-corporate-governance-in-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":219378,"position":2},"title":"Evolution of Corporate Governance in India","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bhumesh Verma, Managing Partner and Himani Singh, Student Researcher, Corp Comm Legal Cite as: (2019) PL (CL) November 69","rel":"","context":"In &quot;OP. ED.&quot;","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Corp-Comm-Legal-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Corp-Comm-Legal-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Corp-Comm-Legal-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Corp-Comm-Legal-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Corp-Comm-Legal-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243471,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/06\/sebi-bans-kishor-biyani-and-other-promoters-of-frl-from-securities-market-rs-17-78-crore-to-be-disgorged-for-the-wrongful-gains-made-by-them\/","url_meta":{"origin":219378,"position":3},"title":"SEBI bans Kishor Biyani and other promoters of FRL from securities market; Rs 17.78 crore to be disgorged for the wrongful gains made by them","author":"Editor","date":"February 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Ananta Barua, (Whole Time Member) found Chairman of Future Group, Kishor Biyani and its other promoters indulged in insider trading. The Board, in addition to a year ban on Kishor Biyani, Anil Biyani and Future Corp. Resource Pvt. Ltd. (FCRPL), had also imposed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":269857,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/08\/securities-exchange-commission-ernst-young-to-pay-100-million-penalty-for-employees-cheating-on-cpa-ethics-exams-and-misleading-investigation\/","url_meta":{"origin":219378,"position":4},"title":"Securities Exchange Commission | Ernst &#038; Young to Pay $100 Million Penalty for Employees Cheating on CPA Ethics Exams and Misleading Investigation","author":"Editor","date":"July 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 On 28-6-2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an order instituting public administrative and cease and desist proceedings against Ernst & Young LLP, and an auditing firm. A penalty of $100 Million has been imposed on E & Y Professionals as they have been found to cheat\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":224431,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/22\/sat-company-floating-cis-without-registering-with-sebi-held-liable-under-s-15-ha-of-sebi-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":219378,"position":5},"title":"SAT | Company floating CIS without registering with SEBI held liable under S. 15-HA of SEBI Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 22, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): A Two-Member Bench of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member) was hearing two appeals pertaining to the orders passed by Adjudicating Officer (AO) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) imposing penalty over appellants. The appeals were filed by Subrata\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/SAT-MUMBAI.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219378","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219378"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219378\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/209781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219378"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219378"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219378"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}