sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG/541-553/2015
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation of Regulation 11(2) of SAST Regulations not established against Noticees; Shri Arvind Kumar Saraf held liable for violating Regulation 13(4) read with 13(5) of PIT Regulations and penalized Rs. 4,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the Act.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15A
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 10
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 11(2)
Parties
- Shri Arvind Kumar Saraf
- Renu Saraf
- Atashi Saraf
- Rishab Saraf
- S D Saraf
- Ramgopal Saraf
- Abha Mansingka
- Anju Dhandhania
- Sidhant Distributor Private Limited
- Vasudha Commercial Private Limited
- Nucleus Insurance Risk Managers Private Limited
- Trust Insurance Risk Managers
- Jeevan Vihar Properties Private Limited
Holding
The violation of Regulation 11(2) of the SAST Regulations does not stand established against the Noticees because the acquisitions constituted exactly 0.50% and not more than 0.50% of listed equity shares, thus not qualifying as a 'bulk deal'. Shri Arvind Kumar Saraf violated Regulation 13(4) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations by making delayed disclosures and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 under Section 15A(b) of the Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 11 India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and various Rules and Regulations made there under. 2. Upon examination, it was, inter alia, observed that Shri Arvind Kumar Saraf, along with Persons Acting in Concert (PACs) namely, Renu Saraf, Atashi Saraf, Rishab Saraf, S D Saraf, Ramgopal Saraf, Abha Mansingka, Anju Dhandhania, Sidhant Distributor Private Limited, Vasudha Commercial Private Limited, Nucleus Insurance Risk Managers Private Limited, Trust Insurance Risk Managers and Jeevan Vihar Properties Private Limited (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Noticees') had acquired 1,00,000 shares constituting 0.50% each, of the total paid up equity capital of Arcotech, on February 05, 2010 and February 08, 2010, respectively, through bulk deals. However, it was observed that no public announcement was made for the said acquisition by the Noticees as required under Regulation 11(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SAST Regulations').
Page 3 of 11 Appointment of Adjudicating Officer 5. The undersigned has been appointed as the Adjudicating Officer vide order dated March 26, 2014, under Section 15 I of the Act read with Rule 3 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15H (ii) of the Act against the Noticees and additionally, under Section 15 A (b) of the Act against Shri Arvind Kumar Saraf for the alleged violation of the provisions of law.
Page 4 of 11 Consideration of Issues, Evidence and Findings: 7. I have carefully perused the charges leveled against the Noticees as per the SCNs, written submissions made by the Noticees and the material as available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are: (a) Whether the Noticees have violated the provisions of Regulation 11 (2) of the SAST Regulations? (b) Does the above violation, if any, on the part of the Noticees attract any
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/541-553/2015. 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.