sebi:AO/SBM/EAD-3/19/2017
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
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 8
- Reg. 8(3)
- Reg. 8(1)
- Reg. 35
- Reg. 35(2)
Parties
- Baid Global Ventures Ltd. (earlier known as Chisel & Hammer (Mobel) Ltd.)
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulation 8(3) of the SAST Regulations, 1997 read with Regulation 35 of the SAST Regulations, 2011 by failing to make timely yearly disclosures to BSE for the years 1998 to 2008 (11 consecutive years), and a penalty of Rs 3,00,000/- was imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 11 Regulation 8(3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “SAST Regulations”) for the years 1998 to 2008. The Noticee was earlier known as Chisel & Hammer (Mobel) Ltd. In view of the alleged violations of the provisions of law, as aforesaid, Adjudication Proceedings under Section 15A (b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”) have been initiated against the Noticee. APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
Page 3 of 11 5. The SCN dated August 28, 2013 returned undelivered with remarks ‘office shifted’. An alternate address of the Noticee, which was also available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) was obtained from BSE i.e. Office No. 167, V-Mall Apartment Owners Condominium, Near Sai Baba Temple, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101. Vide letter dated September 3, 2013, the SCN was sent to the above mentioned address of the Noticee. However, the same also returned undelivered. Thereafter, another attempt to serve the SCN to the Noticee was made through Adroit Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Company’s Share Transfer Agent) vide letter dated June 13, 2014. However, the Share Transfer Agent, vide its letter dated June 16, 2014, informed SEBI that it could not deliver the SCN to the Noticee. Thereafter, in terms of Rule 7 of the Adjudication Rules, the SCN was served on the Noticee on November 6, 2015 by way of affixture on the last known address of the Noticee available as per our records. The Affixture Report in this regard is available on record.
Page 4 of 11 compelled to proceed with the matter ex-parte on the basis of facts/material on record. In this context, I would like to place reliance on the Order dated February 11, 2014 passed by the Hon'ble SAT in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Tayal and Ors vs SEBI (Appeal No. 68 of 2013), wherein Hon’ble SAT had observed that "..........As rightly contended by Mr. Rustomjee, the learned senior counsel for respondents, appellants have neither filed any reply to the show cause notices issued to them nor availed opportunity of personal hearing offered to them in the adjudication proceedings and, therefore, appellants are presumed to have admitted the charges leveled against them in the show cause notices......” . CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES, EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
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-3/19/2017. 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.