sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG/496/2015
Facts / Headnote
Noticee found liable for disclosure violations and penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations relied on
- SEBI (PIT) Regulations, 1992 — 13(1)
- SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 2011 — 29(1)
Parties
- Naksh Media Private Limited
Holding
The Noticee, Naksh Media Private Limited, violated Regulation 13(1) of the PIT Regulations and Regulation 29(1) and 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations by failing to make requisite disclosures to the company and stock exchange. A monetary penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act was imposed on the Noticee.
Full text
Page 2 of 10 Regulations') and Regulation 29(1) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of shares and Takeover) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as SAST Regulations). Further, on April 01, 2013, the Noticee had sold 22,00,000 and 8,98,000 shares by way of two off market transactions. Upon the said sale, the shareholding of the Noticee in CDI decreased by more than 2% i.e. from 24.76% to 7.45% (upon sale of 22,00,000 shares) and 0.41% (upon sale of 8,98,000 shares), respectively, thereby making it liable to make necessary disclosures under Regulation 13(3) read with Regulation13(5) of the PIT Regulations and Regulation 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SAST Regulations. However, it was noted that the Noticee had failed to do so.
Page 3 of 10 Shri Suresh Kumar sought time to file a reply in the matter and accordingly, the Noticee was advised to file its reply, if any, on or before April 06, 2015. However, vide letter dated April 04, 2015, the Noticee requested for time till April 15, 2015 to file its reply. Accordingly, vide letter dated April 15, 2015, the Noticee submitted its reply in the matter. Further, vide letter dated April 30, 2015, the Noticee stated that it had some more documents and evidence to support that it had not violated the provisions of the disclosure requirements and requested time to submit the same. Also, vide letter dated May 14, 2015 and May 25, 2015, the Noticee requested for another opportunity of personal hearing and that it has engaged a legal counsel to represent it in the matter. Accordingly, the said request was acceded to and vide notice dated May 27, 2015, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the Noticee on June 15, 2015. However, vide e-mail dated June 10, 2015, a request to reschedule the said hearing was received from the legal representative of the Noticee. Therefore, the said personal hearing was rescheduled to June 19,
Page 4 of 10 (c) If yes, what should be the quantum of penalty? 7. Before moving forward, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of PIT Regulations and SAST Regulations which read as under:- Relevant provisions of PIT Regulations: Disclosure of interest or holding in listed companies by certain persons - Initial Disclosure
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/496/2015. 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.