sebi:EAD-2/DSR/KM/PU/63-70/2014
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 all Noticees for insider trading violations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 370
- s. 12
- s. 15G
- s. 15J
- s. 307
- s. 372
- s. 4A
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 3(i)
- Reg. 2
- Reg. 2(c)(1)
Parties
- Shri Shanti Ranjan Paul (Noticee No. 1)
- Ms. Manjula H. Parekh (Noticee No. 2)
- Ms. Mona Parekh (Noticee No. 3)
- Shri Nikhil Parekh (Noticee No. 4)
- Ms. Ramaben Jayasukhlal Parekh (Noticee No. 5)
- Shri Hasmukh Parekh (Noticee No. 6)
- Shri Mehul Jayasukhlal Parekh (Noticee No. 7)
- Mehul International Ltd. (Noticee No. 8)
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that Noticee No. 1 violated Regulation 3(ii) of the PIT Regulations by communicating UPSI to the Parekh group, and that Noticees 2 to 8 violated Regulations 3(i), 3(ii) and 4 of the PIT Regulations by trading in SIPL shares on the basis of that UPSI. A penalty of ₹1,00,00,000 was imposed on Noticee No. 1 and ₹2,00,00,000 jointly and severally on Noticees 2 to 8 under Section 15G of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 18 management of the company. It was alleged that Shri Shanti Ranjan Paul (hereinafter referred to as Noticee No. 1), director of SIPL has allegedly passed on Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) to Ms. Manjula H. Parekh, Ms. Mona Parekh, Shri Nikhil Parekh, Ms. Ramaben Jayasukhlal Parekh, Shri Hasmukh Parekh, Shri Mehul Jayasukhlal Parekh and Mehul International Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Noticee Nos. 2 to 8 respectively or ‘Parekh Group entities’) and thereby facilitating them to trade in the scrip of SIPL just before the period of the open offer.
Page 3 of 18 6. After considering the replies submitted by the Noticees, the then AO, Shri. P.K. Kuriachen decided to conduct an inquiry in the matter and accordingly, granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the Noticees on October 19, 2012 vide letter dated October 03, 2012. Noticee No. 1 vide his letter dated October 18, 2012, sought an adjournment of the hearing. Accordingly, he was granted another opportunity of personal hearing on November 30, 2012 vide letter dated November 20, 2012. Vide letter dated December 03, 2012, Noticee No.1 informed that he has received the hearing notice only on December 03, 2012 and therefore, sought another opportunity of personal hearing. Considering his request, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to him on December 20, 2012 vide letter dated December 07, 2012. Thereafter, the Noticee No. 1 attended the said hearing on December 20, 2012 and reiterated the
Page 4 of 18 another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the Noticee Nos. 2 to 8 on December 04, 2013. The authorised representative Mr. Surendra Kumar Jain appeared again on behalf of Noticee Nos. 2 to 8 and reiterated their written submissions.
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/KM/PU/63-70/2014. 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.