BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO.

OIAE/NHCL/AO/DRK-CS/EAD-3/432/98-13] UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING OFFICER) RULES 1995 In respect of: Natura Hue Chem Ltd. C-07, Sector-I, Devendra Nagar, Raipur- 492001 __________________________________________________________________ FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF 1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) observed that Natura Hue Chem Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "NHCL"/ "Noticee"/ "the company") had failed to redress the investor grievances. The shares of NHCL were listed at Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "BSE").

APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 2. The undersigned was appointed as Adjudicating Officer under Section 15-I of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "SEBI Act") read with Rule 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") and the same was communicated vide proceedings of Whole Time Member appointing Adjudicating Officer dated May 10, 2013, to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15C of the SEBI Act, for the non-redressal of investor grievances. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND PERSONAL HEARING 3. A Show Cause Notice no. A&E/DRK/CS/18604/2013 dated July 29, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "SCN") was served on the Noticee by SPAD in terms of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules requiring the Noticee to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against the Noticee and why penalty, if any,

Page 1 of 4

should not be imposed on the Noticee under Section 15C of the SEBI Act for the non-redressal of investor grievances inspite of being called upon by SEBI to do so in witting. In the said SCN, it was stated/ alleged that the Noticee was informed vide letter dated January 22, 2013 that three investor complaints were pending (for more than two years) against it in the SCORES and was directed to take steps within seven days of the receipt of the letter. This letter also mentioned that non-redressal of the investor complaint shall attract the penalty under section 15C and prosecution under section 24 of the SEBI Act. It was further observed that the Noticee had neither replied to the aforesaid letter dated January 22, 2013, nor redressed the investor grievances within the stipulated time inspite of it being called upon to do so in writing. As the grievances remained unresolved, a reminder was sent vide letter dated February 15, 2013 reminding the Noticee to redress all pending complaints and submit action taken report. It was also informed vide this letter that the company must submit its action taken report within seven days of receipt of complaint through SCORES and the complaint must be resolved within a period of 30 days, failing which SEBI may initiate Regulatory action against the company which includes debarring from securities market and/ or imposing penalty. 4. Noticee vide its reply dated August 9, 2013 has submitted that:
.letter dated January 22, 2013 stands duly replied by us vide our letter dated February 5, 2013..The status position of the three complaints states as under: 1. SEBIP/MH02?9101053/1:Shri R Sarvanan- BSE had forwarded to us a complaint regarding non-receipt of 500 shares lodged by the complainant. We had received the transfer deed and share certificates. We found that the shares forfeited and returned the transfer deeds to the claimant regretting our inability to register the transfer. The complainant lodged the complaint with BSE. We replied BSE accordingly with a copy to the complainant. 2. SEBIP/MH10/9112373/1: Bijal D.Vora- The company duly informed complainant on the SCORES. The complaint pertains to transfer of 300 shares. The company had not received the 300 shares alleged to have been sent on December 10, 2009. We have duly replied on the SCORES seeking details. There is no response to this from the complainant and ATR status stands ticked on the SCORES. Under the circumstances, the company is not able to do anything in the matter. 3. SEBIP/MH11/9109787/1: This is a duplicate complaint of serial no 2.

5. Noticee in its abovementioned reply requested to grant an opportunity of personal hearing. Acceding to the request of the Noticee, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted vide hearing notice dated September 21, 2013 to appear on September 5, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai. As the

Page 2 of 4

Noticee failed to appear on the said date a final opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee vide hearing notice dated September 23, 2013 to appear on October 4, 2013 at 11:30 a.m. at SEBI Bhavan, Mumbai. Noticee vide its letter dated October 1, 2013 authorised Mr. S.K. Batra, a Practicing Company as its Authorised Representative (AR) for the aforementioned hearing. Noticee along with the letter dated October 1, 2013 has enclosed a letter dated December 5, 2008 written to SEBI-OIAE, requesting to send the copy of the complaints as it did not receive the complaints filed by the complainants. During the course of personal hearing on October 4, 2013 the AR with regard to the complaint of Shri R. Sarvanan has submitted that the shares were forfeited and the same was intimated to the investor. With regard to the complaint of Bijal D. Vora AR has submitted that they have not received the transfer documents from the complainant. 6. Noticee has filed its additional reply dated October 14, 2013 wherein its has enclosed the Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as "MPSE") letter dated March 13, 2000 stating the approval of forfeiture of 19,52,400 equity shares on account of non-payment of allotment and call money. Noticee has also submitted various letters written to SEBI and the complainants. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS 7. I have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the material made available on record. 8. Noticee has submitted that in response to the letter dated January 22, 2013 it had replied vide letter dated February 5, 2013 wherein the Noticee has stated that it had replied to all the three pending complaints and also enclosed the screen shots of action taken report. 9. With regard to the complaint of Shri R. Sarvanan, it is observed that the Noticee had written two letters dated September 26, 2007, March 3, 2010, informing the complainant that the shares were forfeited by the company and requested the complainant to drop the complaint as no action was called for on its part. Further, Noticee has written a letter dated October 14, 2013 to the complainant stating that the shares were partly paid shares with application and allotment money was not paid by the applicant despite legal notices,.. the complainant had all the legal remedies against the seller through the stock exchange on account of bad delivery.the company was duty bound to retain the share certificates since they

Page 3 of 4

had lost the commercial value.Accordingly the complainant was informed that the certificates were not returned on account of forfeiture. 10. With regard to the complaint of Bijal D. Vora that the Noticee during the course of personal hearing and also vide its reply dated August 9, 2013 had stated that they have not received the transfer documents from the complainant and also stated that it had duly informed the complainant on SCORES that the company had not received 300 shares alleged to have been sent on December 10, 2009. Noticee had enclosed its letter dated August 7, 2013 sent to the complainant stating that it has not received the complaint and further asking for the complete details, proof of dispatch etc. so as to resolve the complaint. 11. In view of the above, it is observed that with respect to the complaint of Shri R. Sarvanan, and Bijal D. Vora Noticee had taken the steps to redress the grievances and the action is pending at the complainant's part. Further SEBIOIAE has informed that these complaints in the SCORES are treated as disposed off as the investors have not reverted after repeated reminders by the company. 12. Thus, in light of the above observations, the allegation of non-redressal of investor grievances against the Noticee is not tenable. ORDER 13. In view of the foregoing, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, available records and confirmation of closing of the complaints from the department, the allegation of non-redressal of investor grievance as specified in the SCN dated July 29, 2013 against Natura Hue Chem Ltd. could not established and the matter is, accordingly, disposed of. 14. In terms of rule 6 of the Rules, copies of this order are being sent to Konark Synthetics Ltd.., Registered Office at C-07, Sector-I, Devendra Nagar,Raipur492001 and to the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. be

Place: Mumbai Date: November 29, 2013

D. RAVI KUMAR CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & ADJUDICATING OFFICER

Page 4 of 4