sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG/822-825/2017
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 under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 for violations of SAST Regulations and PIT Regulations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(1)
- Reg. 13(3)
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 29(2)
- Reg. 29(1)
- Reg. 29(4)
- Reg. 31(2)
- Reg. 13(2)
Parties
- Shri Purnandu Jain
- Purnandu Jain HUF
- Ms. Anupama Jain
- IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that Shri Purnandu Jain violated Regulation 29(2) and 31(2) of the SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(3) of the PIT Regulations, Purnandu Jain HUF and Anupama Jain violated Regulation 31(2) of the SAST Regulations, and IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited violated Regulation 29(1) of the SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(1) of the PIT Regulations, and imposed monetary penalties under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 17 However, it was observed that the Noticees had failed to make the said disclosures. 3. Further, on analysis of the counterparty shareholding after the invocation of the pledge, it was observed that one of the counterparty to the said transaction, namely, IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited (hereinafter individually referred by its respective name and collectively referred to as the Noticee), had acquired certain shares of ADPL. Upon the said acquisition, the Noticee was required to make the necessary disclosures as prescribed under Regulation 29(1) of the SAST Regulations and 13(1) of the PIT Regulations. However, it was observed that the Noticee had failed to do so.
Page 3 of 17 Rules requiring them to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against them for the alleged violation of provisions of law.Vide letter dated April 20, 2017, the Legal Representatives of the Noticees viz. Shri Purnandu Jain, Purnandu Jain HUF and Ms. Anupama Jain sought additional time to file their reply in the matter. With respect to the SCN issued to IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited, it is noted that the same was duly delivered to the said Noticee and vide letter dated April 03, 2017, the Noticee requested extension of 10 days’ time to file its reply in the matter. Vide separate but identical letters dated August 14, 2017, the Noticees viz. Shri Purnandu Jain, Purnandu Jain HUF and Ms. Anupama Jain submitted their detailed reply in the matter. Further, vide letter dated April 13, 2017, IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited also submitted its reply in the matter.
Page 4 of 17 (a) Whether Shri Purnandu Jain has violated the provisions of Regulation 29(2) and 31(2) of the SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(3) of the PIT Regulations? (b) Whether Purnandu Jain HUF and Anupama Jain have violated the provisions of Regulation 31(2) of the SAST Regulations? (c) Whether IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited has violated the provisions of Regulation 29(1) of the SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(1) of the PIT Regulations? (d) Do the violations, if any, on the part of the Noticees attract any penalty under Section 15A (b) of the SEBI Act, 1992? (e) If yes, what should be the quantum of penalty?
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/822-825/2017. 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.