sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG/148-154/2014
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalties imposed: Rs. 5,00,000 each on Noticee Nos. 1 and 2 for violating Regulation 13(2) of PIT Regulations, 1992; Rs. 8,00,000 jointly and severally on Noticee Nos. 3 to 7 for violating Regulation 29(1) and 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of SAST Regulations, 2011. Total penalty: Rs. 18,00,000.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 29(1)
- Reg. 29(3)
- Reg. 13(2)
- Reg. 2(1)(q)(2)
- Reg. 2(1)(q)(1)
- Reg. 15A
Parties
- Kirtibhai Chhaganbhai Patel (Noticee No. 1)
- Aditya Yogeshbhai Patel (Noticee No. 2)
- Kyati Realties Limited (Noticee No. 3)
- Khyati Multimedia Entertainment Limited (Noticee No. 4)
- Kartikbhai J Patel HUF (Noticee No. 5)
- Kamalkant R Rao (Noticee No. 6)
- Radheshyam R Lodh (Noticee No. 7)
Holding
Noticee Nos. 1 and 2, as Additional Directors of KOEIL, violated Regulation 13(2) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 by making disclosures of their shareholdings belatedly on October 25, 2012. Noticee Nos. 3 to 7, deemed Persons Acting in Concert (PACs), violated Regulation 29(1) and 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations, 2011 by failing to make required disclosures after their collective shareholding exceeded 5%.
Full text
Page 2 of 13 (hereinafter referred to as Noticee Nos. 1 and 2) were the Additional Directors in the company. Further, Kyati Realties Limited, Khyati Multimedia Entertainment Limited, Kartikbhai J Patel HUF, Kamalkant R Rao and Radheshyam R Lodh (hereinafter referred to as Noticee Nos. 3 to 7) were the major acquirers during the relevant period and were allegedly deemed as Persons Acting in Concert (PACs) as defined under Regulation 2(1)(q)(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAST Regulations, 2011") based on the relationship of the said Noticees with each other.
Page 3 of 13 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the „Adjudication Rules‟) to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15A(b) of the Act, the alleged violation of the abovementioned provisions of PIT Regulations, 1992 by Noticee Nos. 1 and 2 and the alleged violation of the abovementioned provisions of the SAST Regulations, 2011 by Noticee Nos. 3 to 7.
Page 4 of 13 Consideration of Issues, Evidence and Findings: 8. I have carefully perused the charges against the Noticees as per the SCN /supplementary SCN, oral and written submissions made by the Noticees and the material as available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are: (i) Whether Noticee Nos. 1 and 2 have violated the provisions of Regulation 13(2) of the PIT Regulations, 1992?
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/RG/148-154/2014. 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.