sebi:EAD-2/DSR/RG-VVK/156-164/2014
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed on all nine Noticees for delayed disclosure under Regulation 7(1A) read with Regulation 7(2) of the SAST Regulations, 1997
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15J
- s. 15A
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 7(2)
Parties
- Dr. Kailash S. Choudhari
- Mrs. Seema Choudhari
- Rohan Choudhari
- Rashi Choudhari
- Mrs. Bharti Shailesh
- Mr. Shailesh Popatlal Sundesha
- Mrs. Sharda Popatlal
- Mr. Popatlal Fulchand Sundesha
- Mr. Ganpat Singh Bhandari
Holding
The nine Noticees, being promoters of AOL, violated Regulation 7(1A) read with Regulation 7(2) of the SAST Regulations, 1997 by making delayed disclosures to the stock exchanges and the target company with respect to shareholding changes of more than 2% during the years 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, and are liable for penalty under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 18 Exchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BSE") and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited ( hereinafter referred to as "NSE"). The examination, inter alia, revealed that certain entities, being promoters of AOL, namely 1) Dr. Kailash S. Choudhari, 2) Mrs. Seema Choudhari, 3) Rohan Choudhari, 4) Rashi Choudhari, 5) Mrs.Bharti Shailesh, 6) Mr.Shailesh Popatlal Sundesha, 7) Mrs. Sharda Popatlal, 8) Mr.Popatlal Fulchand Sundesha and 9) Mr.Ganpat Singh Bhandari (hereinafter referred to as Noticee Nos. 1 to 9 and collectively referred to as the Noticees) had acquired shares of AOL on different dates during the years 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010.
Page 3 of 18 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY 5. A com mo n Show Cause Notice dated February 12, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “SCN”) was issued to Noticees under Rule 4(1) of the said Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty not be imposed under Section 15A(b) of the Act against them for the alleged violations of the SAST Regulations, 1997. Vide letter dated March 03, 2014, the Noticees requested for extension of 4 weeks time to submit their replies in the matter. Further, the Noticees, vide their letter dated March 31, 2014, requested for further extension 4 weeks time to file their replies.
Page 4 of 18 (b) Does the violation, if any, on the part of the Noticees attract any penalty under Sections 15A (b) of the SEBI Act?
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-VVK/156-164/2014. 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.