sebi:DSR/AO-31/2008
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Allegation not established; matter disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 13
- s. 15
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 13(3)
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that the noticee was not required to make disclosure under Regulation 13(3) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, as the noticee's holding never exceeded 5% of the shares or voting rights of Prime Property.
Full text
Page 2 of 4 Name Member Buy Qty. Avg. Rate Sell Qty. Avg. Rate Manoj Javeri St. Br. Pvt. Ltd. 47,100 53.92 4,545 81.96 Minal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. S. M. Shah - - 25,000 112.80 Midas Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Manoj Javeri St. Br. Pvt. Ltd. - - 285,000 215.2 Minal Finance Pvt. Ltd. S. M. Shah 69,030 184.76 382,048 214.53 Madhusudan Securities Ltd. S. M. Shah 55,000 93.28 50,000 105.03
Page 3 of 4 Board of India Act, 1992, the alleged violation of Regulation 13 (3) of the said Regulations, committed by the noticee.
Page 4 of 4 12. In the case of Ashwin Doshi (Appeal No.44/2001), the hon’ble SAT held that “The Appellants’ argument that the provisions of regulation 10 need be seen from a realistic angle, that pegging the acquisition at 14.4%, a shade below the prescribed limit of 15%, was designed to circumvent the regulation and, therefore, discarding the technicalities Ambujas should be directed to comply with the requirements of regulation 10, is not tenable. The legislative intent in regulation 10 is very clear. The Regulation does not empower SEBI to ignore the specific bench mark level and enforce compliance of regulation 10, though the acquisition is below the bench mark only by a fraction. There is no discretion available to SEBI in this regard to vary the prescribed limit. SEBI has power to grant exemption from compliance of the regulations in deserving cases, if the acquisition is above the limit but there is no power to include the acquisition which are below the bench mark, like the instant one under regulation 10 by construing that in effect 15% and 14.5% does not make any difference. Fixed percentage limit has been put in regulation 10, to avoid arbitrariness and it has to be strictly adhered to. Therefore, the submission that since only because of a fraction of a point, the acquirers are out of the purview of regulation 10, they should be asked to comply with the requirements of regulation 10 is not acceptable.”
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:DSR/AO-31/2008. 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.