sebi:EAD/PM-AA/AO/6/2018-19
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Show Cause Notice disposed of without imposition of any penalty
Provisions invoked
- s. 15I
- s. 15G
Regulations
- Reg. 3(i)
- Reg. 12(2)
Parties
- Dilip Tambe
Holding
The alleged violation of Regulation 3(i) of PIT Regulations, 1992 read with Regulation 12(2) of PIT Regulations, 2015 against Shri Dilip Tambe was not established because no UPSI existed at the time of his sale of 875 shares of MCX on May 22, 2013, as the UPSI period had ceased on October 3, 2012.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of Dilip Tambe in the matter of MCX Page 2 of 7 days and impending payment defaults by the members of NSEL and loss of reputation of Promoters and Management of MCX. It was observed that any news impacting business of NSEL will automatically impact share price of its holding company (i.e. FTIL) and associate companies (i.e. MCX) and any news impacting credentials of Promoters and Management of FTIL, NSEL and MCX will also impact the share price of MCX, therefore suspension of trading by NSEL was a negative news. As per the Investigating Authority, the UPSI came into existence on April 27, 2012, upon the issuance of the SCN to NSEL by the DCA and it ceased to exist when NSEL suspended trading in all contracts (except e-series contracts) and deferred settlement of all pending contracts on July 31, 2013.
Adjudication Order in respect of Dilip Tambe in the matter of MCX Page 3 of 7 SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “PIT Regulations, 2015”). APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
Adjudication Order in respect of Dilip Tambe in the matter of MCX Page 4 of 7 October 03, 2012 when the information and implication of the said SCN was published in the Economic Times. I sold 875 shares of MCX on May 22, 2013, viz. subsequent in time to October 03, 2012. Therefore, relying upon the said order, it is stated that I have not violated the provisions of Regulation 3(i) of PIT Regulations, 1992 read with Regulation 12(2) of PIT Regulations, 2015 as alleged in the letter under reference.
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:EAD/PM-AA/AO/6/2018-19. 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.