sebi:EAD-2/AO-127-129/2013
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Charges not established; matter disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 8
- Reg. 8(3)
- Reg. 6(1)
- Reg. 6(2)
- Reg. 11(2)
- Reg. 8(1)
Parties
- Mr. Dilip Chand Surana
- Ms. Anju Devi Surana
- Mr. Suresh Chand Surana
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that the charges against the Noticees for violating Regulation 11(2) and Regulations 6(1), 6(2), 8(1), 8(2) of the SAST Regulations were not established, and the matter was disposed of without penalty.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 2. SEBI observed that prior to the open offer, the promoters of the target company namely, Mr. Dilip Chand Surana, Ms. Anju Devi Surana and Mr. Suresh Chand Surana (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘ the Noticees’) acquired 54,351 shares on July 24, 2009, which increased the shareholding of the promoter group including the persons acting in concert from 66.94% to 69.03%. Consequent to the acquisition, the Noticees did not make a public announcement as required under Regulation 11(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as (‘SAST Regulations’). Further, the Noticees also failed to make disclosures as required under Regulations 6(1), 6(2) of SAST Regulations for the year 1997 and Regulations 8(1), 8(2) of SAST Regulations for the years 1998 to
Page 3 of 9 section 15H(ii) and 15A(b) of SEBI Act for the alleged violation of Regulation 11(2) of SAST Regulations and Regulations 6(1), 6(2) of SAST Regulations for the year 1997 and Regulations 8(1), 8(2) of SAST Regulations for the years 1998 to 2009. The SCN was delivered and acknowledged by the Noticee. The Noticees vide letter dated November 10, 2012 replied to the SCN. The Noticees inter-alia submitted the following: a) 54351 shares (individually 13000 shares, 34341 shares and 7010 shares were bought) of Target company were wrongly bought on July 24, 2009 instead of selling. It came to the knowledge on July 27, 2009. Delivery of shares was on July 28, 2009. b) In the above transactions the shares were resold and therefore shareholding did not increase. c) The said transaction has not violated Regulation 11(2) of SAST Regulations. d) The disclosures under Regulation 6(1), 6(2) and Regulations 8(1), 8(2) of SAST Regulations have been complied with.
Page 4 of 9 Noticees in their submissions filed copies of disclosures under Regulations 6(1), 6(2) for the year 1997, copies of disclosures under Regulations 8(1), 8(2) of SAST Regulations for the years 1998 to 2009.
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-127-129/2013. 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.