sebi:BM/AO-155/2013
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 for violation of Regulation 13(3) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15J
- s. 15
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(3)
Parties
- Zoom Mercantile
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulation 13(3) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations by failing to make disclosure to the company when its shareholding fell below 5% of the paid-up capital, and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 was imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
_____________________________________________________________________________________ ZOOM MERCANTILE IN THE MATTER OF S R INDUSTRIES LIMITED Page 2 of 10 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY
_____________________________________________________________________________________ ZOOM MERCANTILE IN THE MATTER OF S R INDUSTRIES LIMITED Page 3 of 10 applied for consent vide application dated May 9, 2012. He undertook to submit to file the reply to the SCN by May 21, 2012.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ ZOOM MERCANTILE IN THE MATTER OF S R INDUSTRIES LIMITED Page 4 of 10 its lapse, the company made the necessary disclosure under Regulation 13(3), to SR Industries Limited on February 24, 2012. (f) Due to inadvertent failure to make disclosure under Regulation 13(3) of PIT Regulations, no adverse consequences have been caused to anybody. The company has not made any disproportionate gain or gained any unfair advantage and no loss has been caused to anybody except the company. This is the first omission on the part of the company which is of technical nature. The company has never been charged or found guilty of any omission/ offence earlier. The company has already suffered heavy losses in this transaction. It is humbly requested that in view of the facts stated, it is requested that a lenient view may please be taken and this lapse may please be condoned. (g) The company wishes to avail the consent process and has already made an application for consent order at the given address under intimation to Adjudicating Officer vides its letter dated May 9, 2012.
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:BM/AO-155/2013. 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.