sebi:EAD-12/SM/161/2018
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 established, no penalty levied
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 8
- Reg. 29(1)
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 29
- Reg. 201
- Reg. 12(2)
Parties
- Arex Industries Ltd. matter Noticee (individual shareholder)
Holding
The allegations against the Noticee for violation of Regulation 29(1) read with 29(3) of SAST Regulations were not established, and a lenient view was taken regarding the non-disclosure under Regulation 13(1) of PIT 1992 due to similarity of disclosure requirements and public awareness achieved through the SAST disclosure. No penalty was levied.
Full text
In the matter of Arex Industries Ltd. Pg 2 of 7 Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act for the alleged violation of Regulation 29(1) read with 29(3) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(1) of the PIT 1992 read with Regulation 12(2) of PIT 2015 by the Noticee.
In the matter of Arex Industries Ltd. Pg 3 of 7 8.6 In the above judgement the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal has held that, if disclosure is made within two working days as required under Rule 29(1) of SAST Regulations and disclosure was not made under Regulation l3(l) of PIT which also requires the disclosure to be made within 2 working days then no abuse or loss on account of investors being not aware of such change in shareholding of an insider under PIT can be presumed as disclosure was made within 2 working days under SAST and the change in shareholding was duly disseminated by the stock exchange on its notice board which was the object of these two regulations. 8.7 I also urge you to refer the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa reported in AIR 1970 SC 253 wherein the Hon'ble court held that: A penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligation; but not, in cases where there is a technical o; venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. In the present case, those in charge of the affairs of the appellant, in failing to register it as a dealer, acted in the honest and genuine belief that the company was not a dealer; and therefore, assuming the appella
In the matter of Arex Industries Ltd. Pg 4 of 7 the 5% threshold to all through their notice board and web site as a result of my disclosure made under Regulation 29(1) of SAST REGULATIONS. 8.11 I am an individual shareholder and have acted bona fide and have never intended to breach any applicable laws and regulations except the present proceeding no other case has been initiated against me by SEBI till date. I request your kind self to please take a lenient view in the matter and pardon me for the unintentional error if any. Hearing:
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-12/SM/161/2018. 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.