sebi:EAD-2/DSR/JAK/649/2017
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Monetary penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed on the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 8(3)
Parties
- Kansal Fibres Ltd
Holding
Kansal Fibres Ltd violated Regulation 8(3) of the SAST Regulations, 1997 by failing to make yearly disclosures for 1998 to 2011 within time and is liable under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act. A monetary penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 was imposed on the Noticee.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 Show Cause Notice, Reply and Personal Hearing A Show Cause Notice dated March 08, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as SCN) was issued to the Noticee in terms of Rule 4 of the said Rules requiring it to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against for the alleged violation. The Noticee filed its reply vide letter dated February 20, 2017 and inter alia contended as follows : "that the company was suspended from trading in the stock exchanges with effect from April, 2000 and suspension in the trading was revoked by stock exchanges only on July 10, 2013. For almost 12-13 years, the company was closed down and in the interest of the shareholders the new acquirers intended to start the said company again. KFL also informed that they incurred losses for many financial years and its networth had eroded totally. KFL employed the regular secretarial staff from July, 2013 and the company has been doing the necessary filings since then. Till January, 2014 the old promoters - management were duty bound to have complied with all the related compliances. Had the compliances been submitted timely by the old promoters- management ,the matter would not have been arisen and the new acquirers - management would not have been saddened to file reply to the present SCN for delay on the part attributable to the old promoters -management. It is to put on record that the new acquirers had in fact made all the compliances before the open offer / take over and hence not involved i
Page 3 of 6 Consideration of Issues, Evidence and Findings 4. I have carefully perused the charges leveled against the Noticee as per the SCN, written submissions made by them and the material as available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are:
Page 4 of 6 6. KFL was required to make yearly disclosures to the Stock Exchanges, pursuant to the change in the promoter shareholdings, as required under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997, on April 30th every year between the years 1998 to 2011, which it failed to do so. Therefore, it is alleged that KFL had violated Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997.
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/DSR/JAK/649/2017. 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.