sebi:CFD-DCR/WDIL-RK/AO/DRK-DS/EAD3-368/34-2013
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs 3,00,000 imposed on noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 8(1)
Parties
- Shri Ramesh P Kothari
Holding
The noticee, Shri Ramesh P Kothari, failed to comply with Regulations 8(1) and 8(2) of the SAST Regulations, 1997 by delayed yearly disclosures, and a penalty of Rs 3,00,000 was imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 8 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15A(b) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SEBI Act’) the violation of Regulations 8(1) and 8(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SAST Regulations’) alleged to have been committed by the Shri. Ramesh P Kothari (hereinafter referred to as 'noticee/him/his').
Page 3 of 8 6 8(2) 21.04.2000 26.08.2002 857 7 8(1) 21.04.2001 26.08.2002 492 8 8(2) 21.04.2001 26.08.2002 492 9 8(1) 21.04.2002 26.08.2002 127 10 8(2) 21.04.2002 26.08.2002 127 11 8(1) 21.04.2003 17.05.2005 757 12 8(2) 21.04.2003 17.05.2005 757 13 8(1) 21.04.2004 17.05.2005 391 14 8(2) 21.04.2004 17.05.2005 391 15 8(1) 21.04.2005 17.05.2005 26 16 8(2) 21.04.2005 17.05.2005 26 17 8(1) 21.04.2007 25.04.2007 4 18 8(2) 21.04.2007 25.04.2007 4 19 8(1) 21.04.2008 04.06.2008 44 20 8(2) 21.04.2008 04.06.2008 44 21 8(1) 21.04.2010 26.04.2010 5 22 8(2) 21.04.2010 26.04.2010 5
Page 4 of 8 There was no wrongful intent behind the inadvertent omission. It may further be appreciated that I have not made any wrongful gains nor have the investors suffered any loss on account of said omission. It was merely a technical lapse. b) The delay in complying with Regulations 8(1) and 8(2) of the SAST Regulations was inadvertent and without any mala fide intent. I was unaware of the stringent nature and requirements under the said regulations. c) However in the year 2005, upon knowledge of the stringent nature of the SAST Regulations I have immediately made the necessary disclosures to the company and pursuant thereto have been regularly making them. The delay of few days from the year 2005 was merely a technical lapse. d) I have not wilfully violated Regulations 8(1) and 8(2) of the SAST Regulations. I repeat and confirm that I have not made any wrongful gains as result of alleged violations. It was merely an inadvertent lapse with no malicious intentions.
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:CFD-DCR/WDIL-RK/AO/DRK-DS/EAD3-368/34-2013. 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.