sebi:AO/SBM/EAD-3/130/2018
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Proceedings disposed of with no penalty imposed under Sections 15A(b) and 15HB of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 2(30)
- s. 2(24)
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 12(1)
- Reg. 12
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 12(3)
- Reg. 12(4)
- Reg. 13(2)
- Reg. 2(g)
Parties
- Shri B. V. S. Jogarao
Holding
The Noticee violated Clause 4.2 of the Model Code of Conduct read with Regulation 12(1) by entering into an opposite transaction within six months, but no penalty under Section 15HB was imposed; the allegation of violation of Regulation 13(4) read with 13(5) was not established as the Noticee was not an officer, and the proceedings were disposed of.
Full text
Page 2 of 26 (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIT Regulations’), had sold 20,000 shares of the Company on December 06, 2012 and subsequently, on December 13, 2012, he purchased 22,200 shares of the Company. It was also alleged that Noticee had failed to make the necessary disclosures required under the PIT Regulations to the Company and Stock Exchange regarding the aforementioned transactions done by him in the scrip of the company, which resulted in change in his shareholding in the Company by more than Rs. 5 lakh in value.
Page 3 of 26 4. In view of the above observations/allegations, adjudication proceedings were initiated against the Noticee under the provisions of Sections 15 A(b) and 15 HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’).
Page 4 of 26 b. On December 13, 2012, Noticee had purchased 22,200 shares of the Company. Therefore, it was alleged that Noticee's purchase of 22,200 shares of the Company for a value of Rs. 65,34,600/- was within a period of six months of the previous transaction executed by him in the scrip of the Company. c. It was therefore alleged that Noticee being a ‘designated employee’ of the Company within the meaning of the PIT Regulations had executed the opposite transaction in the scrip of the Company in less than a period of six months from his previous transaction i.e. his previous transaction involving sale of the 20,000 shares of the Company on December 6, 2012. d. It is alleged that Noticee had failed to make the necessary disclosures to the Company and Stock Exchange about the change in his shareholding, which took place by virtue of the aforesaid purchase of 22,200 shares of the Company, which was more than Rs. 5 lakh in value. Following are the details of the transactions that were executed by the Noticee in the scrip of the Company during the relevant period. Date Gross Buy Volume Gross Sell Volume Gross Buy Value (Rs.) Gross Sell value (Rs.) Provisions under which disclosures were required to be made 06-Dec-2012 0 20,000 0 60,40,000 Regulation 13(4) read with 13(5) of the PIT Regulations 13-Dec-2012 22,200 0 65,34,600 0 Regulation 13(4) read with 13(5) of the PIT Regulations
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-3/130/2018. 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.