sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG/902-904/2018
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations established; monetary penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 each imposed on all three Noticees
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 13(6)
- Reg. 13(5)
- Reg. 30
- Reg. 18
- Reg. 02
- Reg. 01
- Reg. 21
- Reg. 07
- Reg. 19
Parties
- Beryl Drugs Limited
- Ms Sangita Sethi
- Ms Sonia Sethi
Holding
Noticee No. 1 violated Regulation 13(6) of the PIT Regulations by delayed disclosure to BSE, and Noticee Nos. 2 and 3 violated Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) by failing to disclose to the stock exchanges, attracting penalty under Section 15A(b) of Rs. 1,00,000 each.
Full text
Page 2 of 14 exchanges. However, it was observed that the said disclosures were made by BDL to the stock exchanges belatedly i.e. on November 27, 2013.
Page 3 of 14 Consideration of Issues, Evidence and Findings 7. I have carefully perused the charges levelled against the Noticees as per the SCN, replies submitted by them and the material as available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are: (a) Whether the Noticee No. 1 has violated the provisions of Regulation 13(6) of the PIT Regulations? (b) Whether Noticee Nos. 2 and 3 have violated the provisions of Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations? (c) Do the violations, if any, on the part of the Noticees attract any penalty under Section 15A (b) of the SEBI Act, 1992? (d) If yes, what should be the quantum of penalty?
Page 4 of 14 of a reference received from BSE, the shareholding of the promoters of BDL was analyzed. Upon analysis, it was observed that the Noticee No. 2 was a promoter of BDL and had purchased 25,000 shares of BDL on May 30, 2013 which required her to make the necessary disclosures to the Noticee No. 1 (BDL) and to the stock exchanges under the PIT Regulations. It was observed that the Noticee No. 2 had made the disclosures to the Noticee No. 1 on June 01, 2013 under the PIT Regulations. However, it was alleged that the necessary disclosures under Regulation 13(4A) read with Regulation 13(5) of the PIT Regulations were not made by the Noticee No. 2 to the stock exchanges.
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/902-904/2018. 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.