sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG/498/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation established; penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 13(5)
Parties
- Shri Santosh Grover
Holding
The Noticee, being a director promoter of CDI, violated Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations by failing to make requisite disclosure to BSE for sale of 1,10,000 shares. He is liable to a monetary penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 9 necessary disclosures to the company and the stock exchange as prescribed under Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the „PIT Regulations'). However, the Noticee had failed to do so.
Page 3 of 9 Kumar sought time to file a reply in the matter and accordingly, the Noticee was advised to file his 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 the reply. Accordingly, vide letter dated April 15, 2015, the Noticee submitted reply in the matter. Further, vide letter dated April 30, 2015, the Noticee stated that he has some more documents and evidence to support that they 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 he has engaged a legal counsel to represent him 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, 2015. The legal representative attended the hearing on the said date and made oral submissions. Further, he requested for time to file additional submissions in the matter. Accordingly, the Noticee was granted time till June 24, 2015 to make his additional submissions. However, vide e-mail dated June 25, 2015, the Noticee requested for few mo
Page 4 of 9 (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 which read as under:- Relevant provisions of PIT Regulations:
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/498/2015. 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.