sebi:BM/AO-99/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee absolved; no monetary penalty imposed; case disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 12A
- s. 12
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Shivalik Securities Ltd
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer absolved the Noticee (Shivalik Securities Ltd) of the alleged violations of Regulations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(e) of the PFUTP Regulations read with Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, and imposed no monetary penalty.
Full text
2 2007 to January 03, 2008 the price RPIL rose from `. 82 to `. 157, and for the period from January 16, 2008 to January 21, 2008 the price of the scrip of RPIL rose from `.134.55 to `.141.15. SEBI conducted an investigation into the buying, selling and dealing in the shares of RPIL during the aforesaid period.
3 referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulation’) and Section 12A (a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992. Consequently the alleged violations make the Noticee liable for monetary
4 11. The Noticee vide letter dated October 18, 2010 requested for personal hearing to be held in the last week of November, 2010. The Noticee vide letter dated October 21, 2010 made submissions to the SCN stating inter alia the following: ¾ With respect to para 3 of the notice it is submitted that the Company, RPIL had invited subscription of 40,00,000 warrants convertible into equity shares within a period of 18 months at a price of Rs. 44 per warrant to be converted into 4000000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 45 per share on preferential allotment to the bodies corporate other than the promoters on a preferential basis. The company consented to the said allotment and thereafter, it was allotted 10,00,000 warrants as partly paid by RPIL on 26.11. 2007. As the warrants were not fully paid up by the Company, the aforesaid warrants and the amount previously deposited by the Company were forfeited by RPIL. Hence, as such from the said allotment, there was no material gain to the Company. On the contrary, the Company suffered a loss of Rs. 55,00,000/- . Since, RPIL had issued warrants, the said instrument being mere entitlements had not vested any rights to the Company to suggest that the Company had acquired any control or stake in RPIL, either directly or indirectly, therefore, to state that RPIL and Company were related is not maintainable. ¾ It is further submitted that the company is neither forming part of the promoter group nor it is otherwise related
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-99/2011. 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.