sebi:EAD-2/50-55/2013-14
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee No. 1 held liable for failure to close trading window; penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed; all other charges against Noticees not established
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 12
- s. 4A
Regulations
- Reg. 12(1)
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 12
- Reg. 3(i)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 12(2)
- Reg. 36(7)
Parties
- Valecha Engineering Limited (Noticee No. 1)
- Noticee No. 2 (Managing Director of VEL)
- Kavita Valecha (Noticee No. 3, Company Secretary and Compliance Officer)
- Karan Valecha (Noticee No. 4)
- Kapil Valecha (Noticee No. 5)
- Valecha Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Noticee No. 6)
Holding
Noticee No. 1 (Valecha Engineering Limited) failed to comply with Clause 3.2.3(c) of Part A of Schedule I under Regulation 12(1) of the PIT Regulations by not closing the trading window prior to Board meetings for issuance of share warrants/ADR/GDR/FCCBs, warranting a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act. All other charges against Noticees 2 through 6 were not established.
Full text
Page 2 of 21 Disclosure Practices for Prevention of Insider Trading) under Regulation 12 (2) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIT Regulations’). VEL also failed to close the trading window at the time of the Board Meeting for the purpose of issuing of convertible warrants /ADR/GDR, and therefore Noticee Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have violated Clause 3.2.3 Part A of Schedule I under Regulations 12(1) of the PIT Regulations. Further, it has been alleged that Kavita Valecha (hereinafter referred to as Notice No. 3), the Company Secretary and Compliance officer, failed to ensure compliance of the continual disclosure requirements, thereby violating Clause 3.2 of Schedule II as specified under Regulations 12(2) of the PIT Regulations.
Page 3 of 21 of PIT Regulations by the Noticees. SEBI vide Order dated May 22, 2012 appointed the undersigned as the AO.
Page 4 of 21 d) Whether Noticee No.2 has violated Regulation 3 (ii) and Noticee Nos. 4 & 5 violated Regulation 3 (i) of PIT Regulations pursuant to the trading before corporate announcements made by VEL with respect to the bagging of new projects/ contracts? e) Whether Noticee No. 6 has violated Regulation 3 (i) of PIT Regulations, pursuant to the trading while in possession of UPSI with respect to issuance of share warrants ? f) Do the violations, if any, on the part of Noticees attract any penalty under Sections 15 G/ 15 HB of the SEBI Act? g) If yes, what should be the quantum of monetary penalty?
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-2/50-55/2013-14. 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.