sebi:EAD-5/BS/AO/41/2017-18
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Proceeding disposed of without penalty; no violation established
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15I
- s. 23A
- s. 23I
- s. 21
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 7(3)
- Reg. 13(6)
- Reg. 35
Parties
- Suraj Ltd.
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer held that the violation of Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement read with Section 21 of the SCRA is not established against the Noticee, and no penalty is warranted for the alleged violations under Regulation 7(3) of SAST Regulations and Regulation 13(6) of PIT Regulations.
Full text
Page 2 of 10 Takeovers) Regulation, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as SAST Regulations), SEBI (Prevention of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as PIT Regulations), Listing Agreement and Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as SCRA) by Suraj Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Noticee/ the company).
Page 3 of 10 6. Vide letter dated March 07, 2016 Noticee sought 10 days’ time file reply to the SCN. Subsequently vide letter received by SEBI on March 21, 2016, Noticee submitted its reply to the SCN and made the following submissions:
Page 4 of 10 II. Further on 03.05.2012 again Suraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. had transferred shares to Suraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for the same purpose as discussed above, but because of market condition and other factors, management was unable to execute the pledge of shares for the purposes of loan to develop business activity.
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-5/BS/AO/41/2017-18. 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.