sebi:EAD-2/AO/105/2012
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed on the Noticee for failure to file report under Regulation 3(4) of SAST Regulations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 3(4)
- Reg. 6(1)
- Reg. 3(1)
- Reg. 8(1)
- Reg. 3(3)
- Reg. 3(1)(e)
Parties
- Noticee (name not specified in text)
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulation 3(4) of the SAST Regulations by failing to file the required report within 21 days of acquiring more than 15% of the share capital of Bilcare Ltd. through inter-se transfer amongst promoters, and is liable for a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 15A(a) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 8 rights and as a result of the acquisition, the shareholding of the Noticee increased from 1,76,300 shares (5.37%) on April 01, 2003 to 7,36,419 shares (22.43%) on September 05, 2003 without making a public offer in terms of Regulation 10 of the SEBI Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SAST Regulations’). Though the acquisition was made as an inter-se transfer of shares amongst promoters the Noticee has not taken exemption under Regulation 3(1)(e) of SAST Regulations by submitting a report under Regulation 3(4) of the said Regulations.
Page 3 of 8 6. SCN alleged that the Noticee failed to file the report as per the provisions of Regulation 3(4) of SAST Regulations on his acquisition of 17.6% share capital/voting rights in order to claim exemption from making a public offer. The SCN was returned undelivered. Therefore, the SCN was again sent to the new address of the Noticee by Speed Post Acknowledgment Due on October 01, 2009 and the same was duly delivered. The Noticee vide letter dated October 16, 2009 indicated that he is desirous of making a consent application. The Noticee filed consent application no. 1610/2009 on October 23, 2009. However, the consent application of the Noticee was rejected by the High Powered Action Committee on April 27, 2012.
Page 4 of 8 as available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are: a) Whether the Noticee has violated the provisions of regulation 3(4) of the SAST Regulations? b) Does the violation, if any, on the part of the Noticee attract any
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/AO/105/2012. 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.