sebi:AO/SBM/EAD-1/325/2018
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed on the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 173
Regulations
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Mr. Ashit T. Macwan
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that Mr. Ashit T. Macwan, as statutory auditor of STL for FY 2011-12, violated sections 12A(a), (b), (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(b), (c), (d), 4(2)(f) and 4(2)(r) of the PFUTP Regulations, and imposed a penalty of Rs 2,50,000 under section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 16 either directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, till further directions. Further, vide the said interim order, the aforementioned 38 persons/entities were also directed by SEBI to keep in an escrow account, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the date of interim order, an amount of Rs 6,00,11,512/- that they have earned as ill-gotten profit during the period March 13, 2013 to October 18, 2013 and were also directed to keep any other amount that they have reailised as sale proceeds of the shares allotted to them in the Preferential Allotment of shares made by the company on March 15, 2012. It was observed that the Company had made a preferential allotment of 3,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs 10 each at a price of Rs 10 per share to its promoters/promoter group and also to 28 other persons/entities mentioned in the aforementioned interim order.
Page 3 of 16 company during the FY 2011-12. It was alleged that there were misrepresentations/false disclosures that were made by the Noticee in the financial statements of the company for the FY 2011-12 and also misrepresentations / wrong disclosures made in the Annual Report of the Company for the FY 2011-12. It was alleged that the Noticee, in his capacity as the statutory auditor of the company during the FY 2011-12 had failed to exercise due diligence in this regard.
Page 4 of 16 terms of Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be initiated and penalty, if any, be not imposed on the Noticee for the alleged violation of the provisions of sections 12A (a), (b), (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3 (b), (c), (d), 4(2) (f) and 4 (2) (r) of the PFUTP Regulations by the Noticee.
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:AO/SBM/EAD-1/325/2018. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.