sebi:EAD/PM-AB/AO/37/2018-19
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; allegations not sustained
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
Regulations
- Reg. 13(4)
Parties
- P.P. Kaladharan
Holding
The allegations against the Noticee for violating Regulation 13(4) r/w 13(5) of the PIT Regulations could not be sustained because the Noticee did not fall within the definition of "Officer" during the period of the alleged share sales (December 2012).
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of P.P. Kaladharan in the matter of MCX Page 2 of 4 provisions of Regulation 13(4) r/w 13(5) of PIT Regulations by the Noticee. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND REPLY
Adjudication Order in respect of P.P. Kaladharan in the matter of MCX Page 3 of 4 II. Whether the Noticee failed to make any disclosure as envisaged in Reg. 13(4) of the PIT Regulations? and
Adjudication Order in respect of P.P. Kaladharan in the matter of MCX Page 4 of 4 relied on a letter dated January 3, 2013 addressed by MCX to the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. informing about the change in definition of the term “Officer”. On perusal of the said letter, it is observed that the said letter lists the names of employees additionally covered under the definition of “Officer” after the amendment alongwith their shareholding on December 31, 2012. The name of the Noticee is also included in the said list.
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-AB/AO/37/2018-19. 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.